delaware statewide analysis of impediments to …...delaware state analysis of impediments to fair...

Delaware State Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

July 2011 Page i

DELAWARE STATEWIDE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 B. Obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ....................................................... 1 C. Fair Housing Choice ................................................................................................. 3 D. The Federal Fair Housing Act ................................................................................... 4

i. What housing is covered? ........................................................................................... 4 ii. What does the Fair Housing Act prohibit? ................................................................... 5 iii. Additional Protections for the Disabled ....................................................................... 5 iv. Significant Recent Changes ........................................................................................ 6 v. Requirements for New Buildings ................................................................................. 6 vi. Housing Opportunities for Families ............................................................................. 7

E. Delaware Fair Housing Act ....................................................................................... 7 F. Local Fair Housing Ordinances ................................................................................. 8 G. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 9

i. Use of Census Data .................................................................................................. 10 ii. Other Data Sources Used ......................................................................................... 10 iii. Areas of Racial or Ethnic Concentration ................................................................... 10

H. Development of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ............................... 10 i. Local Collaboration of HUD Entitlement Entities in Conducting the AI ...................... 10 ii. Agency Consultation ................................................................................................. 11 iii. Public Comment ....................................................................................................... 11

I. The Relationship between Fair Housing and Affordable Housing .......................... 11

2. DELAWARE STATE REGIONAL PROFILE ........................................ 13 A. Demographic Profile ............................................................................................... 13

i. Population Trends ..................................................................................................... 13 ii. Areas of Racial and Ethnic Minority Concentration ................................................... 15 iii. Residential Segregation Patterns ............................................................................. 16

B. Economic Profile ..................................................................................................... 17 i. Race/Ethnicity and Income ....................................................................................... 17 ii. Concentrations of LMI Persons ................................................................................. 19 iii. Disability and Income ................................................................................................ 20 iv. Familial Status and Income ....................................................................................... 22 v. Ancestry and Income ................................................................................................ 23 vi. Persons with Limited English Proficiency .................................................................. 24 vii. Protected Class Status and Unemployment ............................................................. 25

C. Housing Market ....................................................................................................... 26 i. Housing Inventory ..................................................................................................... 26 ii. Types of Housing Units ............................................................................................. 27 iii. Foreclosure Trends ................................................................................................... 28 iv. Protected Class Status and Home Ownership .......................................................... 29 v. The Tendency of the Protected Classes to Live in Larger Households .................... 30 vi. Cost of Housing ........................................................................................................ 31

D. Home Mortgage Financing ...................................................................................... 35 i. Mortgage Lending Practices ..................................................................................... 35 ii. High-Cost Lending Practices .................................................................................... 41


July 2011 Page ii

3. CITY OF WILMINGTON ................................................................. 45 A. Historical Residential Settlement Patterns .............................................................. 45 B. Demographic Profile ............................................................................................... 45

i. Population Trends ..................................................................................................... 45 ii. Areas of Racial and Ethnic Minority Concentration ................................................... 47 iii. Residential Segregation Patterns ............................................................................. 49 iv. Race/Ethnicity and Income ....................................................................................... 51 v. Concentrations of LMI Persons ................................................................................. 52 vi. Disability and Income ................................................................................................ 53 vii. Familial Status and Income ....................................................................................... 54 viii. Ancestry and Income ................................................................................................ 55 ix. Persons with Limited English Proficiency .................................................................. 56 x. Protected Class Status and Unemployment ............................................................. 57

C. Housing Market ....................................................................................................... 57 i. Housing Inventory ..................................................................................................... 57 ii. Types of Housing Units ............................................................................................. 59 iii. Protected Class Status and Homeownership ............................................................ 61 iv. Foreclosure Trends ................................................................................................... 63 v. The Tendency of the Protected Classes to Live in Larger Households .................... 65 vi. Cost of Housing ........................................................................................................ 66 vii. Protected Class Status and Housing Problems ........................................................ 72

D. Review of Public Sector Policies ............................................................................. 73 i. Wilmington Housing Authority ................................................................................... 73 ii. Privately Assisted Housing ....................................................................................... 88 iii. City Policies Governing Investment of Federal Entitlement Funds ........................... 90 iv. Affirmative Marketing Policy ...................................................................................... 94 v. Site and Neighborhood Selection Policy ................................................................... 95 vi. Appointed Boards and Commissions ........................................................................ 96 vii. Accessibility of Residential Dwelling Units ................................................................ 98 viii. Language Access Plan for Persons with Limited English Proficiency ..................... 100 ix. Comprehensive Planning ........................................................................................ 101 x. Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 104

E. Private Sector Policies .......................................................................................... 111 i. Mortgage Lending Practices ................................................................................... 111 ii. High-Cost Lending Practices .................................................................................. 118

F. Evaluation of Current Fair Housing Profile ........................................................... 122 i. Existence of Fair Housing Discrimination ................................................................ 122 ii. Determination of Unlawful Segregation ................................................................... 122

G. Assessment of Current Fair Housing Policies, Programs, and Activities ............. 123 i. City of Wilmington Fair Housing Ordinance ............................................................ 123 ii. Progress since Previous AI ..................................................................................... 125 iii. Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities ........................................................ 126

H. General Fair Housing Observations...................................................................... 127 I. Potential Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Recommendations .............. 129

i. Public Sector ........................................................................................................... 129 ii. Private Sector ......................................................................................................... 139

J. Fair Housing Action Plan ...................................................................................... 140 K. Signature Page for the City of Wilmington ............................................................ 149

4. NEW CASTLE COUNTY .............................................................. 150 A. Historical Residential Settlement Patterns ............................................................ 150 B. Demographic Profile ............................................................................................. 150

i. Population Trends ................................................................................................... 150 ii. Areas of Racial and Ethnic Minority Concentration ................................................. 152 iii. Residential Segregation Patterns ........................................................................... 155 iv. Race/Ethnicity and Income ..................................................................................... 156 v. Concentrations of LMI Persons ............................................................................... 158 vi. Disability and Income .............................................................................................. 160


July 2011 Page iii

vii. Familial Status and Income ..................................................................................... 161 viii. Ancestry and Income .............................................................................................. 162 ix. Persons with Limited English Proficiency ................................................................ 163 x. Protected Class Status and Unemployment ........................................................... 164

C. Housing Market ..................................................................................................... 165 i. Housing Inventory ................................................................................................... 165 ii. Types of Housing Units ........................................................................................... 166 iii. Protected Class Status and Home Ownership ........................................................ 167 iv. Foreclosure Trends ................................................................................................. 169 v. The Tendency of the Protected Classes to Live in Larger Households .................. 170 vi. Cost of Housing ...................................................................................................... 172 vii. Protected Class Status and Housing Problems ...................................................... 178

D. Review of Public Sector Policies ........................................................................... 179 i. New Castle County Housing Authority .................................................................... 179 ii. Newark Housing Authority ...................................................................................... 186 iii. Privately Assisted Housing ..................................................................................... 201 iv. County Policies Governing Investment of Federal Entitlement Funds .................... 203 v. Affirmative Marketing Policy .................................................................................... 206 vi. Site and Neighborhood Selection Policy ................................................................. 207 vii. Appointed Boards and Commissions ...................................................................... 208 viii. Accessibility of Residential Dwelling Units .............................................................. 209 ix. Limited Access Plan Persons with Limited English Proficiency .............................. 211 x. Comprehensive Plan............................................................................................... 211 xi. Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 216



G. Assessment of Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities ............................. 235 i. Progress since Previous AI ..................................................................................... 235 ii. Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities ........................................................ 236



J. Fair Housing Action Plan ...................................................................................... 249 K. Signature Page for the Urban County of New Castle County ............................... 260 L. Signature Page for the City of Newark ................................................................. 261

5. CITY OF DOVER ........................................................................ 262 A. Historical Residential Settlement Patterns ............................................................ 262 B. Demographic Profile ............................................................................................. 262

i. Population Trends ................................................................................................... 262 ii. Areas of Racial and Ethnic Minority Concentration ................................................. 264 iii. Residential Segregation Patterns ........................................................................... 266 iv. Race/Ethnicity and Income ..................................................................................... 268 v. Concentrations of LMI Persons ............................................................................... 269 vi. Disability and Income .............................................................................................. 271 vii. Familial Status and Income ..................................................................................... 271 viii. Ancestry and Income .............................................................................................. 272 ix. Persons with Limited English Proficiency ................................................................ 273 x. Protected Class Status and Unemployment ........................................................... 273

C. Housing Market ..................................................................................................... 274 i. Housing Inventory ................................................................................................... 274 ii. Types of Housing Units ........................................................................................... 276 iii. Protected Class Status and Home Ownership ........................................................ 277 iv. Foreclosure Trends ................................................................................................. 278


July 2011 Page iv

v. The Tendency of the Protected Classes to Live in Larger Households .................. 279 vi. Cost of Housing ...................................................................................................... 280 vii. Protected Class Status and Housing Problems ...................................................... 285

D. Review of Public Sector Policies ........................................................................... 286 i. Dover Housing Authority ......................................................................................... 287 ii. Privately Assisted Housing ..................................................................................... 299 iii. City Policies Governing Investment of Entitlement Funds ....................................... 301 iv. Appointed Boards and Commissions ...................................................................... 304 v. Accessibility of Residential Dwelling Units .............................................................. 306 vi. Comprehensive Plan............................................................................................... 308 vii. Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 313



G. Assessment of Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities ............................. 330 i. Progress since the Previous AI ............................................................................... 330 ii. Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities ........................................................ 331



J. Fair Housing Action Plan ...................................................................................... 342 K. Signature Page for the City of Dover .................................................................... 352

6. BALANCE OF STATE – KENT AND SUSSEX COUNTIES .................. 353 A. Historical Residential Settlement Patterns ............................................................ 353 B. Demographic Profile ............................................................................................. 353

i. Population Trends ................................................................................................... 353 ii. Areas of Racial and Ethnic Minority Concentration ................................................. 355 iii. Residential Segregation Patterns ........................................................................... 360 iv. Race/Ethnicity and Income ..................................................................................... 361 v. Concentrations of LMI Persons ............................................................................... 364 vi. Disability and Income .............................................................................................. 367 vii. Familial Status and Income ..................................................................................... 367 viii. Ancestry and Income .............................................................................................. 369 ix. Persons with Limited English Proficiency ................................................................ 370 x. Protected Class Status and Unemployment ........................................................... 371

C. Housing Market ..................................................................................................... 372 i. Housing Inventory ................................................................................................... 372 ii. Types of Housing Units ........................................................................................... 375 iii. Protected Class Status and Home Ownership ........................................................ 379 iv. Foreclosure Trends ................................................................................................. 382 v. The Tendency of the Protected Classes to Live in Larger Households .................. 384 vi. Cost of Housing ...................................................................................................... 386 vii. Protected Class Status and Housing Problems ...................................................... 394

D. Review of Public Sector Policies ........................................................................... 396 i. Delaware State Housing Authority .......................................................................... 397 ii. Privately Assisted Housing ..................................................................................... 410 iii. State Policies Governing Investment of Federal Entitlement Funds ....................... 414 iv. Affirmative Marketing Policy .................................................................................... 418 v. Project and Neighborhood Standards ..................................................................... 419 vi. Appointed Boards and Commissions ...................................................................... 420 vii. Accessibility of Residential Dwelling Units .............................................................. 423 viii. Kent County Comprehensive Plan .......................................................................... 424 ix. Sussex County Comprehensive Plan ..................................................................... 430 x. Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 434


July 2011 Page v

E. Private Sector Policies .......................................................................................... 444 i. Mortgage Lending Practices ................................................................................... 444 ii. Denials by Race and Income .................................................................................. 450 iii. High-Cost Lending Practices .................................................................................. 456 iv. Refinancing Loans .................................................................................................. 460


G. Assessment of Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities ............................. 464 i. Progress since Previous AI ..................................................................................... 464 ii. Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities ........................................................ 465



J. Fair Housing Action Plan ...................................................................................... 480 K. Signature Page for the Balance of State .............................................................. 492

7. REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 493 A. Statewide Policies, Programs, and Issues ............................................................ 493

i. Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and Related Policies ............................................ 493 ii. Senate Bill 400 ........................................................................................................ 506 iii. Statewide Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (SFMRB) Program .................. 507 iv. Statewide Live Near Your Work Program ............................................................... 508 v. Delaware Growth Management Policies ................................................................. 510 vi. Uniform Definition of Impaction/Areas of Concentration ......................................... 512 vii. Communities of Opportunity ................................................................................... 514 viii. Impact Fees ............................................................................................................ 514

B. Housing Mobility .................................................................................................... 516 i. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Portability ............................................. 516 ii. Regional Collaboration to Remedy Concentrations in Wilmington .......................... 518 iii. Lack of Accessible Housing Throughout the State ................................................. 520

C. Taxes .................................................................................................................... 522 i. City of Wilmington ................................................................................................... 523 ii. New Castle County ................................................................................................. 524 iii. City of Dover ........................................................................................................... 526 iv. Balance of State ..................................................................................................... 526

D. Public Transit ........................................................................................................ 530 i. Destinations and Routes ......................................................................................... 533 ii. Accessibility ............................................................................................................ 534

E. Newspaper Advertising ......................................................................................... 535 i. Publisher’s Policies ................................................................................................. 535 ii. Placement of Fair Housing Logo ............................................................................. 536 iii. Potentially Discriminatory Language in Advertisements ......................................... 536

F. Other Advertising .................................................................................................. 536 G. Real Estate Practices ............................................................................................ 538

i. New Castle County Board of Realtors (NCCBOR) ................................................. 538 ii. Kent County Association of Realtors (KCAOR) ...................................................... 539 iii. Sussex County Association of Realtors (SCAOR) .................................................. 540

H. Evaluation of Current Fair Housing Profile ........................................................... 542 i. HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) ................................... 542 ii. Delaware Community Legal Aid Society, Inc (CLASI)............................................. 544

I. Assessment of Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities ............................. 545 i. Statewide Fair Housing Programs and Activities .................................................... 545 ii. State Office of Human Relations (OHR) ................................................................. 549 iii. Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC) .................................................. 551 iv. Statewide Fair Housing Training Seminars ............................................................. 552

J. General Fair Housing Observations...................................................................... 553


July 2011 Page vi

K. Potential Regional Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Recommendations556 i. Public Sector ........................................................................................................... 556 ii. Private Sector ......................................................................................................... 567

L. Regional Fair Housing Action Plan ....................................................................... 568

8. APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................. 579

9. APPENDIX B: PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS ........................... 581

10. APPENDIX C: ZONING REVIEWS ................................................. 583

11. APPENDIX D: PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES ................................... 594

12. APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ......... 600


July 2011 Page vii

Index of Tables and Figures Figure 1-1 Protection for Members of the Protected Classes .......................................................... 9 Figure 2-1 Population Trends, 1990-2010 ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-2 Population Trends, 1990-2010 ..................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-3 Population Trends by Race and Ethnicity, 1990-2010 ................................................. 15 Figure 2-4 Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 ....................................................................... 15 Figure 2-5 Areas of Concentration by Municipality, 2010 .............................................................. 16 Figure 2-6 Delaware Municipal Dissimilarity Index Rankings, 2000 .............................................. 17 Figure 2-7 Median Household Income and Poverty Rates by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 ..................... 18 Figure 2-8 Household Income Distribution by Race, 2008 ............................................................. 18 Figure 2-9 Household Income Distribution by Race, 2008 ............................................................. 19 Figure 2-10 Low and Moderate Income Persons, 2010 ................................................................. 20 Figure 2-11 Persons with Disabilities, 2008 ................................................................................... 21 Figure 2-12 Poverty Rates by Disability, 2008 ............................................................................... 21 Figure 2-13 Female-Headed Households with Children, 1990-2008 ............................................. 22 Figure 2-14 Foreign-Born Residents, 2008 .................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-15 Families with Children with Incomes less than 200% Poverty, 2008.......................... 24 Figure 2-16 Persons with LEP by Locality, 2008 ........................................................................... 25 Figure 2-17 Civilian Labor Force, 2008 .......................................................................................... 26 Figure 2-18 Trends in Total Housing Units, 1990-2010 ................................................................. 27 Figure 2-19 Trends in Housing Units in Structures, 2000 .............................................................. 28 Figure 2-20 Estimated Residential Foreclosure Rankings, January 2007 – June 2008 ................ 28 Figure 2-21 Home Ownership by Race and Ethnicity of Householder, 2000 ................................. 29 Figure 2-22 Families with Three or More Persons, 2000 ............................................................... 30 Figure 2-23 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2000 ........................................................... 31 Figure 2-24 Trends in Housing Value, Rent and Income, 1990-2008 ............................................ 32 Figure 2-25 Loss of Affordable Rental Housing Units, 2000-2008 ................................................. 33 Figure 2-26 Housing Market Sales Trends, 2006-2010 ................................................................. 34 Figure 2-27 Housing Market Sales Trends, 2006-2010 ................................................................. 35 Figure 2-28 Number of Housing Units Sold by Price, 2009 ........................................................... 35 Figure 2-29 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data, 2007-2009 ...................... 37 Figure 2-30 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data, 2009 ............................... 38 Figure 2-31 Denials by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2009 ................................................................. 39 Figure 2-32 Denials by Income, 2007-2009 ................................................................................... 40 Figure 2-33 Denials by Race for Lower Income Applicants, 2007-2009 ........................................ 40 Figure 2-34 Denials by Race for Upper Income Applicants, 2007-2009 ........................................ 41 Figure 2-35 High-Cost Home Purchase Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2007-2009 .......... 43 Figure 2-36 High-Cost Refinancing Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2007-2009 ................. 44 Figure 3-1 Population Trends, 1990-2010 ..................................................................................... 46 Figure 3-2 Changes in the Racial and Ethnic Characteristics of the Population, 1990-2010 ........ 47 Figure 3-3 Census Tract Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2010 ...................................... 48 Figure 3-4 Delaware Municipal Dissimilarity Index Rankings, 2000 .............................................. 50 Figure 3-5 Wilmington Dissimilarity Indices, 2000 ......................................................................... 50


July 2011 Page viii

Figure 3-6 Median Household Income and Poverty Rates by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 ..................... 51 Figure 3-7 Household Income Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 2008 ....................................... 51 Figure 3-8 Household Income Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 2008 ....................................... 52 Figure 3-9 Low and Moderate Income Persons, 2010 ................................................................... 53 Figure 3-10 Female-headed Households and Households with Children, 1990-2008 .................. 55 Figure 3-11 Civilian Labor Force, 2008 .......................................................................................... 57 Figure 3-12 Trends in Total Housing Units, 1990-2010 ................................................................. 58 Figure 3-13 Trends in Housing Units in Structures, 2000 .............................................................. 60 Figure 3-14 Home Ownership by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 .......................................................... 62 Figure 3-15 Estimated Residential Foreclosure Rates by Census Tract, January 2007 – June 2008 ................................................................................................................................................ 64 Figure 3-16 Foreclosure Filing Trends, January 2008 to August 2010 .......................................... 65 Figure 3-17 Families with Three or More Persons, 2000 ............................................................... 66 Figure 3-18 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2000 ........................................................... 66 Figure 3-19 Trends in Housing Value, Rent and Income, 1990-2008 ............................................ 67 Figure 3-20 Loss of Affordable Rental Housing Units*, 2000-2008 ............................................... 67 Figure 3-21 Housing Market Trends, 2000-2009 ........................................................................... 69 Figure 3-22 Housing Market Trends, 2000-2009 ........................................................................... 69 Figure 3-23 Units Sold by Price, 2000-2009 .................................................................................. 70 Figure 3-24 Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Race/Ethnicity, 2009 .................................. 71 Figure 3-25 Lower Income Households with Housing Problems, 2000 ......................................... 72 Figure 3-26 WHA Public Housing Developments, 2010 ................................................................ 74 Figure 3-27 Characteristics of Current Public Housing Residents, 2010 ....................................... 75 Figure 3-28 Characteristics of Applicants on Public Housing Waiting List, 2010........................... 76 Figure 3-29 Section 504 Mobility and Sensory-Accessible Units, 2010 ......................................... 79 Figure 3-30 Characteristics of Current Section 8 Voucher Holders, 2010 ..................................... 82 Figure 3-31 Characteristics of Applicants on Section 8 Waiting List, 2010 .................................... 83 Figure 3-32 Other Assisted Rental Housing Inventory in City of Wilmington, 2008 ....................... 89 Figure 3-33 Composition of Appointed Boards and Commissions, 2010 ...................................... 98 Figure 3-34 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data, 2007-2009 .................... 112 Figure 3-35 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data, 2009 ............................. 113 Figure 3-36 Denials by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2009 ............................................................... 114 Figure 3-37 Denial Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2009 ...................................................... 115 Figure 3-38 Denials by Income, 2007-2009 ................................................................................. 115 Figure 3-39 Denials by Race for Lower-income Applicants, 2007-2009 ...................................... 116 Figure 3-40 Denials by Race for Upper-income Applicants, 2007-2009 ...................................... 116 Figure 3-41 Denial Rates by Race and Income, 2009 ................................................................. 117 Figure 3-42 High-Cost Home Purchase Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2007-2009 ........ 119 Figure 3-43 High-Cost Refinancing Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2007-2009 ............... 122 Figure 3-44 City of Wilmington Fair Housing Action Plan ............................................................ 141 Figure 4-1 Population Trends, 1990-2010 ................................................................................... 151 Figure 4-2 Changes in the Racial and Ethnic Characteristics of the Urban County Population, 1990-2008** .................................................................................................................................. 152 Figure 4-3 Census Tract Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2010 .................................... 153 Figure 4-4 Delaware Dissimilarity Index Rankings, 2000 ............................................................. 156


July 2011 Page ix

Figure 4-5 Median Household Income and Poverty Rates by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 ................... 157 Figure 4-6 Household Income Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 2008 ..................................... 157 Figure 4-7 Urban County Household Income Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 2008* ............ 158 Figure 4-8 Low and Moderate Income Persons, 2010 ................................................................. 159 Figure 4-9 Female-headed Households and Households with Children, 1990-2008 .................. 162 Figure 4-10 Persons with LEP, 2008 ............................................................................................ 163 Figure 4-11 Civilian Labor Force, 2008 ........................................................................................ 165 Figure 4-12 Trends in Total Housing Units, 1990-2010 ............................................................... 166 Figure 4-13 Trends in Housing Units in Structures, 2000 ............................................................ 167 Figure 4-14 Home Ownership by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 ........................................................ 168 Figure 4-15 Estimated Residential Foreclosure Rates by Census Tract, January 2007 – June 2008 .............................................................................................................................................. 169 Figure 4-16 Urban County Foreclosure Filing Trends, January 2008 to August 2010* ............... 170 Figure 4-17 Families with Three or More Persons, 2000* ............................................................ 171 Figure 4-18 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2000* ........................................................ 171 Figure 4-19 Trends in Housing Value, Rent and Income, 1990-2008 .......................................... 172 Figure 4-20 Loss of Affordable Rental Housing Units, 2000-2008* ............................................. 173 Figure 4-21 Housing Market Trends, 2000-2009 ......................................................................... 174 Figure 4-22 Housing Market Trends, 2000-2009 ......................................................................... 175 Figure 4-23 Units Sold by Price, 2000-2009 ................................................................................ 176 Figure 4-24 Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Race/Ethnicity, 2009 ................................ 177 Figure 4-25 Lower Income Households with Housing Problems, 2000* ...................................... 178 Figure 4-26 Characteristics of Current Section 8 Voucher Holders, 2010 ................................... 180 Figure 4-27 Characteristics of Applicants on the Section 8 Waiting List, 2010............................ 181 Figure 4-28 NHA Public Housing Developments, 2010 ............................................................... 187 Figure 4-29 Characteristics of Current Public Housing Residents, 2010 ..................................... 188 Figure 4-30 Characteristics of Applicants on the Public Housing Waiting List, 2010 .................. 189 Figure 4-31 Characteristics of Current Section 8 Voucher Holders, 2010 ................................... 195 Figure 4-32 Characteristics of Applicants on the Section 8 Waiting List, 2010............................ 196 Figure 4-33 Other Assisted Rental Housing Inventory in New Castle County (excluding Wilmington), 2008 ......................................................................................................................... 202 Figure 4-34 Estimated Growth Rates in New Castle County ....................................................... 212 Figure 4-35 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data, 2007-2009 .................... 225 Figure 4-36 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data, 2009 ............................. 226 Figure 4-37 Denials by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2009 ............................................................... 227 Figure 4-38 Denial Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2009 ...................................................... 228 Figure 4-39 Denials by Income, 2007-2009 ................................................................................. 228 Figure 4-40 Denials by Race for Lower-Income Applicants, 2007-2009 ...................................... 229 Figure 4-41 Denials by Race for Upper-Income Applicants, 2007-2009 ...................................... 229 Figure 4-42 Denial Rates by Race and Income, 2009 ................................................................. 230 Figure 4-43 High-Cost Home Purchase Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2007-2009 ........ 232 Figure 4-44 High-Cost Refinancing Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2007-2009 ............... 234 Figure 4-45 New Castle County Fair Housing Action Plan .......................................................... 250 Figure 5-1 Population Trends, 1990-2010 ................................................................................... 263 Figure 5-2 Changes in the Racial and Ethnic Characteristics of the Population, 1990-2010 ...... 264


July 2011 Page x

Figure 5-3 Census Tract Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2010 .................................... 265 Figure 5-4 Delaware Municipal Dissimilarity Index Rankings, 2000 ............................................ 267 Figure 5-5 Dover Dissimilarity Indices, 2000 ................................................................................ 267 Figure 5-6 Median Household Income and Poverty Rates by Race, 2008 .................................. 268 Figure 5-7 Household Income Distribution by Race, 2008 ........................................................... 268 Figure 5-8 Household Income Distribution by Race, 2008 ........................................................... 269 Figure 5-9 Low and Moderate Income Persons, 2010 ................................................................. 270 Figure 5-10 Female-headed Households and Households with Children, 1990-2008 ................ 272 Figure 5-11 Civilian Labor Force, 2008 ........................................................................................ 274 Figure 5-12 Trends in Total Housing Units, 1990-2010 ............................................................... 275 Figure 5-13 Trends in Housing Units in Structures, 2000 ............................................................ 276 Figure 5-14 Home Ownership by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 ........................................................ 277 Figure 5-15 Estimated Residential Foreclosure Rates by Census Tract, January 2007 – June 2008 .............................................................................................................................................. 278 Figure 5-16 Families with Three or More Persons, 2000 ............................................................. 279 Figure 5-17 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2000 ......................................................... 279 Figure 5-18 Trends in Housing Value, Rent and Income, 1990-2008 .......................................... 280 Figure 5-19 Loss of Affordable Rental Housing Units*, 2000-2008 ............................................. 281 Figure 5-20 Housing Market Trends, 2000-2009 ......................................................................... 282 Figure 5-21 Housing Market Trends, 2000-2009 ......................................................................... 283 Figure 5-22 Units Sold by Price, 2000-2009 ................................................................................ 284 Figure 5-23 Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Race, 2008 ............................................... 285 Figure 5-24 Lower Income Households with Housing Problems, 2000 ....................................... 286 Figure 5-25 DHA Public Housing Developments, 2010 ............................................................... 287 Figure 5-26 Characteristics of Current Public Housing Residents, 2010 ..................................... 288 Figure 5-27 Characteristics of Applicants on Public Housing Waiting List, 2010......................... 289 Figure 5-28 Section 504 Accessible Units, 2010 ......................................................................... 291 Figure 5-29 Characteristics of Current Section 8 Voucher Holders, 2010 ................................... 294 Figure 5-30 Characteristics of Applicants on Section 8 Waiting List, 2010 .................................. 295 Figure 5-31 Other Assisted Rental Housing Inventory in the City of Dover, 2008 ....................... 300 Figure 5-32 City of Dover CDBG Allocations, 2003-2008 ............................................................ 302 Figure 5-33 Composition of Appointed Boards and Commissions, 2010* ................................... 306 Figure 5-34 Zoning and Land Use Categories ............................................................................. 314 Figure 5-35 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data, 2007-2009 .................... 320 Figure 5-36 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data, 2009 ............................. 321 Figure 5-37 Denials by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2009 ............................................................... 322 Figure 5-38 Denial Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2009 ...................................................... 323 Figure 5-39 Denials by Income, 2007-2009 ................................................................................. 323 Figure 5-40 Denials by Race for Lower-income Applicants, 2007-2009 ...................................... 324 Figure 5-41 Denials by Race for Upper-income Applicants, 2007-2009 ...................................... 324 Figure 5-42 Denial Rates by Race and Income, 2009 ................................................................. 325 Figure 5-43 High-Cost Home Purchase Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2007-2009 ........ 327 Figure 5-44 High-Cost Refinancing Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income, 2007-2009 ............... 329 Figure 5-45 City of Dover Fair Housing Action Plan .................................................................... 343 Figure 6-1 Population Trends, 1990-2010 ................................................................................... 354


July 2011 Page xi

Figure 6-2 Changes in the Racial and Ethnic Characteristics of the Population, 1990-2010 ...... 355 Figure 6-3 Census Tract Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2010 .................................... 357 Figure 6-4 Delaware Municipal Dissimilarity Index Rankings, 2000 ............................................ 361 Figure 6-5 Median Household Income and Poverty Rates by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 ................... 362 Figure 6-6 Household Income Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 2008 ..................................... 363 Figure 6-7 Household Income Distribution by Race, 2008 ........................................................... 363 Figure 6-8 Low and Moderate Income Persons, 2010 ................................................................. 365 Figure 6-9 Persons with Disabilities, 2008 ................................................................................... 367 Figure 6-10 Female-headed Households and Households with Children, 1990-2008 ................ 368 Figure 6-11 Foreign-Born Population, 2008 ................................................................................. 369 Figure 6-12 Families under 200% Poverty level by Ancestry, 2008 ............................................ 370 Figure 6-13 Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 2008 ....................................................... 371 Figure 6-14 Civilian Labor Force, 2008 ........................................................................................ 372 Figure 6-15 Trends in Total Housing Units, 1990-2010 ............................................................... 374 Figure 6-16 Trends in Housing Units in Structures, 2000 ............................................................ 377 Figure 6-17 Home Ownership by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 ........................................................ 380 Figure 6-18 Estimated Residential Foreclosure Rates by Census Tract, January 2007 – June 2008 .............................................................................................................................................. 383 Figure 6-19 Balance of State Foreclosure Filing Trends, January 2008 to August 2010 ............ 384 Figure 6-20 Families with Three or More Persons, 2000 ............................................................. 385 Figure 6-21 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2000 ......................................................... 385 Figure 6-22 Trends in Housing Value, Rent and Income, 1990-2008 .......................................... 386 Figure 6-23 Loss of Affordable Rental Housing Units, 2000-2008 ............................................... 387 Figure 6-24 Housing Market Trends in Kent County, 2000-2009 ................................................ 389 Figure 6-25 Housing Market Trends in Kent County, 2000-2009 ................................................ 389 Figure 6-26 Units Sold by Price in Kent County, 2000-2009 ........................................................ 390 Figure 6-27 Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Race/Ethnicity in Kent County, 2009 ........ 391 Figure 6-28 Housing Market Trends in Sussex County, 2005-2010 ............................................ 392 Figure 6-29 Housing Market Trends in Sussex County, 2005-2010 ............................................ 393 Figure 6-30 Median Sales Price by Unit Size per Year in Sussex County, 2005-2010 ............... 393 Figure 6-31 Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Race/Ethnicity in Sussex County, 2009 ... 394 Figure 6-32 Lower Income Households with Housing Problems in Balance of State, 2000 ........ 395 Figure 6-33 Lower Income Households with Housing Problems in Kent County, 2000 .............. 396 Figure 6-34 Lower Income Households with Housing Problems in Sussex County, 2000 .......... 396 Figure 6-35 DSHA Public Housing Developments, 2010 ............................................................. 398 Figure 6-36 Characteristics of Current Public Housing Residents, 2010 ..................................... 399 Figure 6-37 Section 504 Accessible Units, 2010 ......................................................................... 400 Figure 6-38 Characteristics of Current Section 8 Voucher Holders, 2010 ................................... 404 Figure 6-39 Characteristics of Applicants on Combined DSHA Waiting List, 2010 ..................... 409 Figure 6-40 Other Assisted Rental Housing Inventory in Kent County (excluding Dover), 2008. 412 Figure 6-41 Other Assisted Rental Housing Inventory in Sussex County, 2008.......................... 413 Figure 6-42 Composition of Appointed Boards and Commissions in Kent County, 2010 ............ 421 Figure 6-43 Composition of Appointed Boards and Commissions in Sussex County, 2010 ....... 422 Figure 6-44 Land Use Matrix ........................................................................................................ 425 Figure 6-45 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data in Kent County, 2007-2009445


July 2011 Page xii

Figure 6-46 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data in Sussex County, 2007-2009 .............................................................................................................................................. 446 Figure 6-47 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data in Kent County, 2009 ..... 447 Figure 6-48 Summary Report Based on Action Taken Mortgage Data in Sussex County, 2009 449 Figure 6-49 Denials by Race and Ethnicity, 2007-2009 ............................................................... 451 Figure 6-50 Denial Rates by Race and Ethnicity – Balance of State, 2007-2009 ....................... 451 Figure 6-51 Denials by Income, 2007-2009 ................................................................................. 452 Figure 6-52 Denials by Race for Lower-income Applicants, 2007-2009 ...................................... 453 Figure 6-53 Denials by Race for Upper-income Applicants, 2007-2009 ...................................... 454 Figure 6-54 Denial Rates by Race and Income, 2009 ................................................................. 455 Figure 6-55 High-Cost Home Purchase Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income in Kent County, 2007-2009 .................................................................................................................................... 457 Figure 6-56 High-Cost Home Purchase Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income in Sussex County, 2007-2009 .................................................................................................................................... 458 Figure 6-57 High-Cost Refinancing Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income in Kent County, 2007-2009 .............................................................................................................................................. 460 Figure 6-58 High-Cost Refinancing Loans by Race/Ethnicity and Income in Sussex County, 2007-2009 .............................................................................................................................................. 461 Figure 6-59 DSHA/Balance of State Fair Housing Action Plan .................................................... 481 Figure 7-1 QAP Priority Pools/Setasides ..................................................................................... 494 Figure 7-2 QAP Scoring Categories ............................................................................................. 495 Figure 7-3 Comparison of QCTs, DDAs, DSHA Impacted Areas, and Areas of Concentration .. 497 Figure 7-4 SFMRB Program Recipients by Race/Ethnicity, 2008-Present .................................. 508 Figure 7-5 Statewide Investment Areas ....................................................................................... 511 Figure 7-6 Level 1 and 2 Areas by County ................................................................................... 512 Figure 7-7 Areas of Concentration Throughout the State ............................................................ 513 Figure 7-8 Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes in the City of Wilmington per $100,000 Market Value, 2010 .................................................................................................................................. 524 Figure 7-9 Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value in Incorporated Areas, 2010 .................................................................................................................................. 525 Figure 7-10 Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value in Unincorporated Areas, 2010 .................................................................................................................................. 526 Figure 7-11 Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value, 2010 ................ 526 Figure 7-12 Kent County Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value in Incorporated Areas, 2010 ............................................................................................................. 527 Figure 7-13 Kent County Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value in Unincorporated Areas, 2010 ........................................................................................................ 528 Figure 7-14 Sussex County Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Assessed Value in Incorporated Areas, 2010 ......................................................................................................... 529 Figure 7-15 Sussex County Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Assessed Value in Unincorporated Areas, 2010 ..................................................................................................... 530 Figure 7-16 Percent of Transit-Dependent Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 ................ 531 Figure 7-17 Modes of Transportation to Work, 2009 ................................................................... 531 Figure 7-18 Use of Public Transportation to Work by Community, 2009 ..................................... 532 Figure 7-19 Bases for Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD, 2000-2010 .............................. 543 Figure 7-20 Resolution of Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD, 2000-2010 ........................ 543 Figure 7-21 Bases for Fair Housing Complaints Received by CLASI, 2009-2010 ...................... 544


July 2011 Page xiii

Figure 7-22 Regional Fair Housing Action Plan ........................................................................... 569 Figure 10-1 City of Wilmington Zoning Ordinance Review .......................................................... 583 Figure 10-2 New Castle County Zoning Ordinance Review ......................................................... 584 Figure 10-3 Town of Elsmere Zoning Ordinance Review ............................................................ 585 Figure 10-4 City of Newark Zoning Ordinance Review ................................................................ 586 Figure 10-5 New Castle City Zoning Ordinance Review .............................................................. 587 Figure 10-6 City of Dover Zoning Ordinance Review ................................................................... 588 Figure 10-7 Kent County Zoning Ordinance Review .................................................................... 589 Figure 10-8 Sussex County Zoning Ordinance Review ............................................................... 590 Figure 10-9 Town of Milford Zoning Ordinance Review ............................................................... 591 Figure 10-10 Town of Smyrna Zoning Ordinance Review ........................................................... 592 Figure 10-11 Town of Georgetown Zoning Ordinance Review .................................................... 593


July 2011 Page 493

7. REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Statewide Policies, Programs, and Issues

i. Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and Related Policies The Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) is a public policy that establishes DSHA’s priorities for rental housing initiatives financed in part with equity from the sale of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Each year, the QAP must be approved by the Governor of the State of Delaware before credits can be awarded by DSHA.

Because the competition for tax credits is robust, tax credit developers design their rental housing projects to achieve maximum scoring under DSHA’s scoring categories. Taken together with the State’s Housing Development Fund (HDF), the QAP has a major impact on what populations are served, the types of projects that will be undertaken (i.e., new construction or rehabilitation of existing dwellings) and, indirectly, where rental housing is built or rehabilitated.

In a recent federal fair housing case, The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (N.D. Tex. 2010), the Texas QAP was challenged by a local affordable housing advocate. The Department of Housing and Community Affairs is the housing finance agency for the State of Texas. The lawsuit alleged that TDHCA disproportionately approved tax credits for low-income housing in minority neighborhoods and denied applications for family tax credit housing in predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods. The plaintiff alleged that TDHCA's policy in awarding credits perpetuated racial segregation in violation of the FHA. TDC argued that it prioritized tax credit applications for projects located in QCTs in accordance with Section 42 and that as such, it was unavoidable that tax credit projects would be located in concentrated minority neighborhoods rather than Caucasian neighborhoods. TDHCA submitted a motion for summary judgment (i.e., dismissal of the case). On September 28, 2010, Judge Fitzwater denied TDHCA's motion and affirmed the plaintiff's standing to sue. This case is now headed to trial. It is within this context that the AI considers DSHA’s QAP.

For the purposes of the AI, DSHA’s 2010 QAP was reviewed to determine the extent to which it offers opportunities to expand fair housing choice for members of the protected classes. Rather than focusing on the requirements of Section 42 of the IRC, this review will examine those policies and priorities expressed in the QAP that are unique to DSHA.

The total annual tax credit authority for the entire state of Delaware in 2010 was $2,430,000. DSHA’s QAP establishes four priority “pools” or setasides in which projects compete for credits, as follows:


July 2011 Page 494

Figure 7-1 QAP Priority Pools/Setasides

In addition to the above described setasides, DSHA awards points to projects that address certain program priorities. Tax credit applicants must score a minimum of 55 points based on the 22 scoring categories in the following chart in order to meet DSHA’s threshold for an award of credits.

# Pool or Setaside % of Total Tax Credit Authority

Description

1 Non‐profi t 10% Includes projects in which a qual i fied 501©(3) or 501 ©(4) non‐profi t organization owns an interest in and materia l ly participates in the development and operation of affordable renta l hous ing throughout the 15 year compl iance period.

El igible projects include:

(a) any tax credi t development that has survived i ts 15 year compl iance period that i s in need of rehabi l i tation or i s at‐risk of los ing i ts affordabi l i ty, and

(b) any occupied renta l development that i s subs idi zed with renta l ass is tance contracts and in need of rehabi l i ta tion or i s at‐ri sk of los ing i ts affordabi l i ty

3 Chronica l ly homeless

9% Hous ing for specia l populations including res idents with a diagnosable substance abuse disorder, serious mental i l lness , developmental disabi l i ty or chronic phys ica l i l lness or disabi l i ty. The fi rs t priori ty under this category i s for res idents that are homeless , ins ti tutiona l i zed or those l iving in substandard or overcrowded conditions . The second priori ty i s for a l l others .

4 New hous ing creation

36% Includes new construction of rent and income‐restricted renta l hous ing. Also includes the convers ion of non‐res identia l s tructures to res identia l use. Excludes elderly hous ing unless a l l uni ts are at least 50% subs idized. Vacant and/or abandoned s tructures qual i fy under this category.

100%

2 Preservation/rehab 45%

TOTAL


July 2011 Page 495

Figure 7-2 QAP Scoring Categories

# Category Description Range of Potential

Points for Qualifying Projects

1Increase in the

compliance period for affordability

Developments in which the term of the compliance period is greater than that required by Section 42 of the IRC; also projects designed to convert to homeownership upon expiration of the initial 15 year compliance period

0 to 3 points

2Serving the lowest income tenants

Developments serving very low income tenants below 50% of median income 0 to 15 points

3Additional new units for

families in poverty

Developments that are affordable to families in poverty as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

0 to 5 points

4 Per unit cost reductionDevelopments where project costs are between 50% and 80% of HUD’s 221(d)(3) cost limits.

0 to 5 points

5 Special needs housing

Developments that provide permanent housing for persons with special needs, including HIV/AIDS, homeless, mentally ill, persons with physical disabilities, developmentally‐disabled persons and migrant/seasonal farm workers. Supportive services must be provided free of charge to the residents.

5 points

6Fair housing and ADA

unitsDevelopments that provide accessible units above and beyond the minimum requirement of 5% of the total units to be developed.

0 to 5 points

7Local government

contribution

Developments that receive financial support from local government that reduce the capital costs or operating costs by at least 2%, including direct capital funding, waiver of fees, tax abatements, donation of land or land provided at a nominal price.

0 to 5 points

8Local government

supportApplications that include a signed letter of support from the Chief Executive Officer of the local unit of government in which the project is located.

3 points

9Leveraging of non‐DSHA

fundsApplications with commitments of funds other than tax credit equity and DSHA‐administered programs

0 to 15 points

10Mixed income – market

rateDevelopments where at least 20% and no more than 50% of the total units in the development are not rent‐restricted and not income‐restricted.

5 points

11 Historic housing Developments that utilize state or federal historic tax credits 5 points

12 Preservation Developments that are at imminent risk of losing affordability restrictions 0 to 5 points

13USDA Rural Development or other federal rental

subsidy

Developments that have received an award of new USDA or other federal rental subsidy

3 points

14Public Housing and Section 8 waiting list

Developments that utilize public housing and/or Section 8 waiting lists to recruit tenants

1 point

15Capacity of development and management team

Relevant experience and qualifications of the developer and management entity 0 to 6 points

16Provision of social

services

Projects that provide on‐site supportive services that are actively linked to the residents (requires the submission of a supportive service plan with the tax credit application).

0 to 3 points

(A) Development sites that are suitable for the proposed development without excessive geo‐technical, environmental or infrastructure costs

(B) Developments in economically mixed neighborhoods that address DSHA’s suitability factors, including proximity to retail, employment, daycare, medical care, public transit, entertainment, schools and within non‐industrial areas with no other rental housing in the immediate area.

18Development and unit

amenities

Developments that exceed DSHA’s minimum construction standards, including an on‐site community center, security/surveillance system, community garden, separate maintenance building, on‐site daycare, on‐site senior care, eat‐in kitchens, irrigation systems and exterior storage closets. In order to qualify, the amenities must affect 100% of the units.

0 to 5 points

19 Energy efficiencyDevelopments with new energy saving features that exceed DSHA’s minimum energy guidelines

1 to 5 points

20Community

revitalization planDevelopments that are clearly identified and included in approved community revitalization plans

2 points

21 Qualified census tract Developments located within a HUD‐identified Qualified Census Tract 1 point

22 Community outreach

Developments in which the sponsor notifies the elected county executive, existing residents, the local state senator, the local state representative and/or the local mayor or council president prior to submission of the tax credit applicationDevelopments in which the sponsor conducts community meetings or presentations prior to submission of the tax credit application

0 to 5 points

17Site and neighborhood

standards

(A) 0 to 2 points

(B) 0 to 10 points


July 2011 Page 496

To its credit, DSHA has established a policy within the updated 2011 QAP to expand fair housing choice in non-impacted areas of the state. In scoring category 17(B) (listed in Figure 7-2), tax credit projects located in non-impacted census tracts can receive up to ten points. According to DSHA’s HDF policies, the definition of impacted census tracts include areas that have a homeownership rate of less than 50% and where more than 25% of the total number of housing units are subsidized. Using this definition, there are six impacted census tracts in the State of Delaware, including tracts 1, 4, 17, 20 and 21 in the City of Wilmington, tract 425 in Milford, and tract 409 in Dover.

The AI defines areas of racial and ethnic concentration as those census tracts having a percentage of Black or Hispanic residents that is at least 10 percentage points higher than the relative presence of Black or Hispanic residents for the community (City or County) as a whole. Using this definition, there are 47 areas of racial concentration and 15 areas of ethnic concentration in the State of Delaware. Furthermore, the AI defines areas of LMI concentration as block groups where more than 51% of residents meet the criteria for LMI status. In the State of Delaware, 140 block groups met the criterion for areas of LMI concentration.

Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code encourages the production of tax credit housing in hard-to-serve areas known as Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) and Difficult to Develop Areas (DDAs). The Code defines a DDA as "any area designated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as an area which has high construction, land, and utility costs relative to the area median gross income." QCTs are census tracts in which one-half or more of the households have incomes below 60 percent of the area median income or the poverty rate is 25 percent or higher. Not more than 20 percent of a State’s population may be designated as QCTs. Based on the QCT and DDA designations, developers using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to build or rehabilitate affordable rental housing can claim 30 percent more in eligible basis than is available to identical projects outside of these areas.

The following chart compares HUD QCTs, DDAs, DSHA Impacted Areas, and areas of racial, ethnic, and/or LMI concentration within the State of

OBSERVATION: Delaware’s HDF policies already recognize the importance of expanding the supply of affordable housing outside of areas of racial and ethnic concentration. DSHA’s definition of impaction includes areas with a higher than average number of renter households and where there is already an adequate supply of subsidized rental housing. However, DSHA’s definition of impaction does not consider racial, ethnic, or LMI concentrations. Both the QAP and HDF development standards should provide a definition of impacted areas that is consistent with the AI and DSHA’s Five Year Consolidated Plan.


July 2011 Page 497

Delaware. Highlighted census tracts on the chart represent QCTs that are also areas of racial, ethnic, and/or LMI concentration.

Figure 7-3 Comparison of QCTs, DDAs, DSHA Impacted Areas, and Areas of Concentration

Census Tract

CommunityHUD QCT*(2011)

HUD DDA**(2011)

DSHA Impacted Areas ***

AI Racial, Ethnic, and LMI Concentrations ****

B=BlackH=Hispanic

LMI=Low and moderate income

1 Wilmington ∙ ∙ (B), (LMI)

2 Wilmington ∙ (B)3 Wilmington ∙ (B)4 Wilmington ∙ ∙ (LMI)

5 Wilmington ∙ (B), (LMI)

6.01 Wilmington ∙ ∙ (B), (LMI)

6.02 Wilmington ∙ ∙ (B), (LMI)




14 Wilmington ∙ (LMI)



17 Wilmington ∙ ∙ ∙ (B), (LMI)

18 Wilmington None




22 Wilmington ∙ ∙ (H), (LMI)

23 Wilmington ∙ ∙ (H), (LMI)

25 Wilmington ∙ (H), (LMI)

26 Wilmington ∙ (H), (LMI)


129 Wilmington and Lower Christiana

∙ (H)

24 New Castle County ∙ (B)27 New Castle County ∙ (B), (H)

101.01 New Castle County ∙ (B), (LMI)


103 New Castle County ∙ (LMI)

107 New Castle County ∙ (B), (LMI)

112.01 New Castle County ∙ (LMI)


July 2011 Page 498

Census Tract


HUD DDA**(2011)



B=BlackH=Hispanic




122 New Castle County ∙ (H), (LMI)















144.03 Greater Newark Area ∙ ∙ (LMI)




147.06 New Castle County ∙ (B)148.08 New Castle County ∙ (LMI)

149.02 New Castle County ∙ (B)149.03 New Castle County ∙ (B), (LMI)







156 New Castle County ∙ (B), (H), (LMI)



160 New Castle County ∙ (B)162 New Castle County ∙ (LMI)


163.02 New Castle County ∙ (B)163.03 New Castle County ∙ (B), (LMI)


169.02 New Castle County ∙ (B)


July 2011 Page 499

Census Tract


HUD DDA**(2011)



B=BlackH=Hispanic


402.03 Kent County ∙ (B), (LMI)

405 Kent County ∙ (B)406 Dover ∙ (B)406 Kent County ∙ (B)407 Kent County ∙ (B)408 Kent County ∙ (B)409 Dover ∙ None

410 Kent County ∙ (B)411 Kent County ∙ (LMI)

412 Kent County ∙ (B)413 Kent County ∙ (B)414 Dover ∙ (B), (LMI)

414 Kent County ∙ (B), (LMI)

415 Kent County ∙ (B), (LMI)

418.01 Kent County ∙ (LMI)



424 Kent County ∙ (LMI)

425 Kent County ‐ Milford ∙ ∙ (B), (LMI)

430 Kent County ∙ (LMI)

502 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (B)503.01 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (LMI)

503.02 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (LMI)


504.04 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (B)505.02 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (H), (LMI)


507.01 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (B)507.02 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (LMI)


514 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (H), (LMI)

518.02 Sussex County ∙ ∙ (B), (LMI)

All of Sussex County ∙ N/A

*The IRS defines QCTs as “census tracts in which one‐half or more of all households have incomes below 60% of the area median income or the poverty rate is 25 percent or higher.” Source: www.HUD.gov/HOME/2011QCTsandDDAs **The IRS defines a DDA as “any area designated by the Secretary of HUD as an area which has high construction, land and utility costs relative to the area median gross income.” Source: www.HUD.gov/HOME/2011QCTsandDDAs ***DSHA defines impacted areas as those census tracts having a homeownership rate of less than 50% and where more than 25% of the total number of housing units are state or federally subsidized.****The AI defines areas of concentration as those census tracts having a percentage of Black or Hispanic residents that is at least 10 percentage points higher than the relative presence of Black or Hispanic residents for the community as a whole. The AI defines areas of LMI concentration as block groups where 51% or more of residents met the criterion for LMI status. Dover (50.11% and New Castle County (45.69%) are exceptions.


July 2011 Page 500

In Delaware, there are a total of 15 QCTs. Twelve of the State’s QCTs are located in the City of Wilmington. All 12 of the QCTs in Wilmington are located in areas of racial, ethnic and/or LMI concentration. The remaining three QCTs are located in and around the City of Newark in New Castle County. Of these, all three are located in areas of LMI concentration. Prioritizing tax credit projects located in QCTs limits fair housing choice because frequently these projects are located in areas where other tax credit housing is located. Furthermore, all 15 QCTs are located in areas of racial, ethnic, and/or LMI concentration. As such, this federally legislated priority of prioritizing tax credit projects in QCTs is an impediment to fair housing choice. It should be noted, however, that this impediment is beyond the purview of DSHA.

DSHA is essentially caught between two conflicting federal statutes. On one hand, the federal government requires DSHA to affirmatively further fair housing choice by expanding the supply of affordable rental housing in non-impacted neighborhoods. On the other hand, the federal government requires DSHA to incentivize tax credit projects in QCTs, many of which are located in areas of racial, ethnic, and/or LMI concentration.

Section 42(m)(1)(B)(iii) of the Code requires all states to provide a QAP preference for projects located in QCTs where such projects contribute to a concerted community revitalization plan. DSHA addresses this requirement in scoring category 21. Under this criterion, one (1) point is awarded to tax credit projects located in QCTs. DSHA recently revised its QAP to lower the points granted to a project located in a QCT (total points allotted previously was three points). Reducing the QCT incentive to one (1) point in the QAP is a prudent effort on the part of DSHA to meet the QAP requirements of Section 42 while making every effort to affirmatively further fair housing choice.

DSHA must strive to achieve a delicate balance in terms of the geography of its housing investments. On the one hand, expanding fair housing choice requires DSHA to affirmatively select projects in non-impacted neighborhoods of opportunity. On the other hand, expanding affordable housing exclusively in neighborhoods of opportunity and withholding investment entirely from impacted areas would adversely affect efforts to revitalize neighborhoods in decline.

Expanding fair housing choice and breaking down historic patterns of segregation is a double edged sword. For some residents of impacted neighborhoods, exercising fair housing choice means moving to another neighborhood that offers economic opportunity, proximity to the workplace, better schools and a more safe and secure environment. Affirmative moves from impacted neighborhoods to areas of opportunity help to break down patterns of segregation. As such, it is important to allocate credits, HOME funds and HDF funds in neighborhoods of opportunity in order to provide this choice to members of the protected classes and other LMI residents of the State.


July 2011 Page 501

For other residents that live in impacted neighborhoods, exercising fair housing choice means revitalizing the community into a more attractive and safer place so that they may continue to live in their neighborhood and so that others will want to move into the neighborhood. Public policy aimed at stabilizing decline and encouraging others to move into the neighborhood also helps to break down patterns of segregation. If DSHA fails to invest public resources in impacted neighborhoods, it is inevitable that these areas will continue to decline, thereby limiting fair housing choice on the part of members of the protected classes and other residents that would prefer to remain in the neighborhood.

Balancing a variety of resident housing preferences and complying with Section 42, HUD’s site and neighborhood standards and other federal regulatory requirements is achieved by making affordable housing investments both in neighborhoods of opportunity and by re-investing in impacted areas.

Above and beyond the 22 separate scoring categories described in Figure 7-2, DSHA may award a 30% boost in eligible basis for high-ranking projects where additional resources are needed to render the project financially feasible and where the development is not located in a Qualified Census Tract (QCT) or Difficult to Develop Area (DDA). This provision in the QAP grants DSHA the ability to support projects of special merit. In light of the decline in the tax credit equity market during the period 2008 to 2010, DSHA used this provision of the QAP to fill financing gaps in projects across-the-board. As of this writing, equity investors are now cautiously returning to the tax credit market. As the market continues to improve, DSHA may have more flexibility to award the non-QCT 30% basis boost to tax credit projects of special merit, including those located in non-impacted, non-concentrated areas.

OBSERVATION: Scoring category 21 (listed in Figure 7‐2) of the QAP provides one point for projects located in QCTs and DDAs. DSHA is in the unenviable position of being required to comply with two contradictory federal statutes. On one hand, the federal Housing and Community Development Act and related statutes require DSHA to affirmatively further fair housing choice by expanding the supply of affordable rental housing in non‐impacted neighborhoods. On the other hand, Section 42 of the federal Internal Revenue Code requires DSHA to incentivize tax credit projects in QCTs, many of which are located in impacted and concentrated areas. This provision of Section 42 is an impediment to fair housing choice. It is beyond the purview of DSHA to overcome this federal impediment. Furthermore, DSHA must comply with both statutes in order to insure continued tax credit authority under Section 42 and in order to insure continued CDBG and HOME funding under the Housing and Community Development Act. By granting only one point to projects located in a QCT or DDA, DSHA is providing the least amount of incentive possible in order to maintain compliance with Section 42.


July 2011 Page 502

Project notification requirements are evident in three separate policies – Section 42(m)(1)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code, State Senate Bill 400 (Section 4028 of Chapter 40, Title 31 of the Delaware Code), and scoring categories 8 and 22 of the QAP (listed in Figure 7-2).

In accordance with Section 42(m)(1)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code, DSHA notifies the chief elected official having jurisdiction over the location of any application meeting the minimum threshold eligibility requirements. In addition to the federal statute outlined in Section 42, State Senate Bill 400 (Section 4028 of Chapter 40, Title 31 of the Delaware Code) requires DSHA to notify the elected officials (i.e. Senators, Representatives, Mayors, etc.) in the jurisdiction of the application. To comply with Section 42 and SB 400, DSHA’s QAP requires the applicant to notify the elected officials and civic groups located within a quarter mile of the development 10 days after the LIHTC application. Both Section 42 and SB 400 are barriers to fair housing choice because they increase the likelihood that the proposed project will be resisted by local NIMBYists. These requirements also increase the likelihood that the project may be opposed through political intervention. It should be noted that these regulatory barriers to fair housing choice are beyond the purview of DSHA.

To receive notification points (up to 3 points) under scoring category 8, an applicant can notify elected officials and civic groups of the project 30 days prior to application submission. This DSHA policy is a barrier to fair housing choice because it increases the likelihood that the proposed project will be resisted by NIMBYists or through political intervention. Under scoring category 22, the developer may also sponsor and hold meetings with the community to present their application 30 days prior to submission. This policy represents a barrier to fair housing choice because in order to earn points, developers will likely be required to make a public presentation of the proposed project, even if the project does not require a public hearing in order to obtain zoning approval. In other words, developers who do not wish to expose the project to the potential objections of neighboring property owners are penalized in this point category.

The fair housing rule of thumb is that an affordable housing project should not be subjected to a higher standard of public notification than market rate housing. To do so is discriminatory. A community’s land use regulations should be the sole determining factor in deciding whether a public meeting is required. If an apartment building is permitted by right in a certain location, a public hearing is not required under normal circumstances. The method of

OBSERVATION: DSHA may award a 30% boost in eligible basis for high‐ranking projects where additional resources are needed to render the project financially feasible and where the development is not located in a Qualified Census Tract (QCT) or Difficult to Develop Area (DDA). This important provision in the QAP allows DSHA to give special consideration to projects of special merit, including those that expand fair housing choice in non‐impacted, non‐concentrated areas of the State.


July 2011 Page 503

financing (i.e., conventional market-rate financing versus tax credit equity or other public subsidies) should not be a factor for consideration when deciding whether a public meeting is required.

Once constructed and placed in service, DSHA monitors each project to insure compliance with regulatory requirements. One such requirement is the Fair Housing Act (FHA). DSHA requires the owner to disclose any findings of discrimination. The owner is required to certify annually that it has not been a party to a finding of discrimination under the FHA, nor has it refused to lease a unit in the project to an applicant on the basis that the applicant holds a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher. DSHA physically inspects at least 20% of all tax credit projects annually. This inspection involves, among other things, a review of the owner’s documentation to support the annual project certification.

DSHA’s policy on civil rights compliance is stated on page 62 of the QAP. This policy requires the owner to comply with the federal Fair Housing Act, ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The policy specifically references the protected classes in the State of Delaware as well as the owner’s responsibility for compliant design, affirmative marketing, tenant selection and reasonable accommodation.

In the section of the QAP entitled “Minimum Construction/Rehab Standards”, developers and owners are reminded of their responsibility to comply with the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Delaware State Accessibility Standards. Under the description of ADA requirements, there is an indirect reference to “Section 504 laws.”

OBSERVATION: Section 42(m)(1)(A)(ii), SB 400, and QAP scoring category 8 of the QAP require that local elected officials be informed of a developer’s intent to develop tax credit housing. In addition, scoring category 22 provides additional points to a developer that sponsors and holds a public meeting to present their application. Collectively, these requirements increase the likelihood that the proposed project will be resisted by NIMBYists or through political intervention. There exists no such public notification requirement for conventional or market rate housing in Delaware. Therefore, the method of financing a residential development project is the key factor in determining whether public notification is required. If a tax credit developer chooses not to pursue the award of points under scoring category #8, he/she is at a competitive disadvantage. In reaction to these policies, most developers will follow the path of least resistance by developing properties in jurisdictions where they will be met with the least public resistance rather than in locations that offer an opportunity to expand fair housing choice or otherwise address a critical need for affordable housing. These public policies (i.e., Section 42, SB 400, and scoring categories 8 and 22 of the QAP) are discriminatory. The local land use approval process should be the sole factor in determining the need for public notification. Tax credit housing should not be subjected to a higher standard of public notification than conventionally financed market rate housing. Notification policies and incentives that encourage public notification limit fair housing choice.


July 2011 Page 504

The Rehabilitation Standards Checklist included in the QAP requires the applicant to respond to several closed end (yes/no) questions involving the provision of handicapped parking spaces, ADA access, accessible laundry room, and accessible community room.

The Development Standard Checklist requires the applicant to secure the approval of the Architectural Accessibility Board (the specific date of the Board’s approval is required) as well as closed end (yes/no) questions relative to compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act and the American with Disabilities Act.

The management agent questionnaire requires the manager to provide information on previous experience, including the preparation of marketing plans. Section 15 of the questionnaire requires the manager to respond to a closed end (yes/no) question “has the manager or its present personnel ever been involved in governmental or judicial action concerning an alleged violation of “Fair Housing” laws”. However, this questionnaire does not require the manager to provide specific information on the nature and frequency of fair housing education provided to its staff.

The QAP requires the owner to submit the HUD 935-2a Affirmative Marketing form. Question 6(b) requires the applicant to submit on separate sheets a description of the fair housing training to be provided to staff, along with a copy of instructions to staff regarding fair housing. The applicant is required to update this form at least once every five years.

Above and beyond the QAP, DSHA imposes certain management agent requirements on all projects financed by the Agency. These standards are defined in an umbrella policy entitled “DSHA Management Agent Requirements.” Section 3 of this policy describes the minimal educational requirements for management agents. Subsection 3(B) requires the Principal and all management personnel to obtain a “fair housing certification.”

OBSERVATION: The QAP requires only minimal information from the applicant relative to the fair housing acumen of management staff.

OBSERVATION: During the course of AI outreach to advocacy organizations and PHAs, it became apparent that there is insufficient housing for persons with mobility impairments in Delaware. Due in part to an aversion to density, the stock of accessible elevator buildings in Delaware is in relatively short supply. PHAs report that despite local preferences for the disabled, it is exceptionally difficult for Section 8 voucher holders with mobility impairments to secure private housing. It is inherently difficult and expensive to rehabilitate existing rental housing units in a manner that creates fully accessible dwelling units. Therefore, new tax credit units are the primary method of expanding the supply of accessible rental housing in Delaware.


July 2011 Page 505

Section 4 of this policy describes DSHA requirements relative to staff capacity. The policy states that “on-site management staff must have “accredited certification” for fair housing. Section 9 of this policy imposes a more generic requirement that management staff has received “continued training and education”. DSHA’s policy certainly underscores the importance of management personnel that are thoroughly knowledgeable in fair housing law and procedures. But the terms “fair housing certification,” “accredited certification” and “continued training and education” are somewhat vague.

DSHA does provide funding aimed at expanding fair housing training opportunities for housing managerial staff. For example, last year DSHA provided $1,650 to send 30 site managers to a statewide fair housing training sponsored by the Delaware Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (DE NAHRO). In 2011, DSHA is providing $2,420 to send 44 site managers to this same training. While DSHA provides support for DE NAHRO’s annual fair housing training by sending and paying for a majority of the attendees, DSHA could further demonstrate its commitment to educating housing staff and managers by directly co-sponsoring the event with DE NAHRO and other state agencies. In 2001, DSHA co-sponsored this fair housing conference with DE NAHRO and the State Office of Human Relations. Since then, DE NAHRO has continued to provide and sponsor the training on an annual basis. DSHA has agreed to provide funding in support of these workshops.

DSHA’s Management Agent Selection Procedure is another policy that imposes fair housing-related requirements on organizations that manage DSHA-financed developments. Section 3 of this policy requires the submission of a comprehensive management plan that describes how the project will insure equal housing opportunity and avoid discrimination in leasing.

OBSERVATION: While DSHA does provide financial support for fair housing trainings, it does not have an agency‐wide policy that encourages housing managers to participate in fair housing trainings. DSHA could benefit from a single management agent policy relative to fair housing that is articulated with consistency throughout the QAP, in its HDF guidelines, and in the broader umbrella of requirements that apply to all developments financed by DSHA.

OBSERVATION: DSHA should continue to provide funding to allow site managers to attend DE NAHRO’s annual fair housing training session. To further demonstrate its commitment to affirmatively further fair housing, DSHA should begin to co‐sponsor this event, or a similar event, in partnership with DE NAHRO and other applicable state agencies such as the Office of Human Relations.


July 2011 Page 506

Since 90% of all tax credit projects in Delaware involve financial support from DSHA’s Housing Development Fund (HDF), it is important to note that the Project and Neighborhood Standards for HDF-assisted developments include two fair housing-related requirements. Developments financed with HDF must:

• Be suitable from the standpoint of facilitating and furthering full compliance with the applicable provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and Delaware Code Chapter 46, Title 6, The Equal Right To Housing provisions.

• Promote greater choice of housing opportunities to, and avoid undue concentration of assisted persons in areas containing a high proportion of low-income persons

ii. Senate Bill 400 On June 30, 2000, the Delaware State Senate adopted Bill No. 400 (Section 4028 of Chapter 40, Title 31 of the Delaware Code) which requires DSHA to notify by certified and regular mail any state senators and representatives in whose districts affordable housing projects are being considered or approved by DSHA. More specifically, this legislation requires DSHA to provide such notification whenever:

• An application for a reservation of Low Income Housing Tax Credits has been received by DSHA, and again whenever

• An application for a reservation of Low Income Housing Tax Credits has received preliminary approval by DSHA, and whenever

• DSHA makes any loans or grants from the State’s Housing Development Fund.

This statutory requirement is an impediment to fair housing choice because it increases the likelihood that the proposed project may be resisted by local NIMBYists. This requirement also increases the likelihood that the project

OBSERVATION: Ninety percent (90%) of all tax credit projects in Delaware involve HDF as a source of funds. HDF Project and Neighborhood Standards require that each HDF‐assisted project:

• Comply with state and federal fair housing statutes, • Promote fair housing choice, and • Prohibit undue concentration of affordable housing in lower income areas.

HDF guidelines provide a definition of impacted census tracts/areas of concentration. However, this definition should be revised to provide a more concise definition of what is meant by the phrase “areas of racial, ethnic and LMI concentration,” along with a listing of census tracts in Delaware that meet this definition. The HDF definition should be consistent with the definition of impacted areas in DSHA’s Consolidated Plan and the AI.


July 2011 Page 507

may be opposed through political intervention. It should be noted that this regulatory barrier to fair housing choice is beyond the purview of DSHA.

The fair housing rule of thumb is that an affordable housing project should not be subjected to a higher standard of public notification than market rate housing. To do so is discriminatory. A community’s land use regulations should be the sole determining factor in deciding whether public notification is required. If an apartment building is permitted by right in a certain location, public notification is not required under normal circumstances. The method of financing (i.e., conventional market-rate financing versus tax credit equity, HDF or other public subsidies) should not be a factor for consideration when deciding whether public notification is required.

iii. Statewide Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (SFMRB) Program DSHA’s Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (SFMRB) Program, also known as the First-Time Homebuyers Program, is a statewide program that provides first mortgage financing at below-market interest rates to qualified Delaware homebuyers who have not owned a home in the past three years.

Program requirements differ by county, by location in targeted versus non-targeted areas, and by number of persons per household. Income limits are higher in targeted areas of the three counties and for households with three or more persons. There are also certain qualifications that the sales price of the home to be purchased must meet, depending on the location of the home and the number of units. There are currently 18 participating lenders from which qualified applicants can choose from in order to secure mortgage financing.

From 2008 to the present, the First-Time Home Buyers Program has assisted 1,290 persons to purchase a home in locations statewide. The beneficiaries of this program represent a diverse mix of races, ages, ethnicities, and household types. Of the 1,290 households, just over 31% were Black, almost 3% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian, compared to White households which comprised over 60% of the recipients. The following chart provides

OBSERVATION: Senate Bill 400 (Chapter 40, Title 31, Section 4028 of the Delaware Code) requires that state senators and representatives be notified whenever a housing tax credit application is received by DSHA, approved by DSHA, or whenever DSHA makes a loan or grant to an affordable housing project under its Housing Development Fund (HDF). This legislation increases the likelihood that the proposed project will be resisted by NIMBYists or through political intervention. There exists no such notification requirement for conventional or market rate housing in Delaware. Therefore, the method of financing a residential development project is the key factor in determining whether notification is required under this legislation. This public policy is discriminatory. The local land use approval process should be the sole factor in determining the need for public notification. Tax credit housing or HDF‐financed affordable housing should not be subjected to a higher standard of public notification than conventionally financed market rate housing. Notification policies have the potential to limit fair housing choice.


July 2011 Page 508

an overview of the ethnic and racial characteristics of SFMRB Program participations from 2008 through January 2011.

Figure 7-4 SFMRB Program Recipients by Race/Ethnicity, 2008-Present

Data was also available for age, sex, and familial status. In regard to age, the majority of program participants, or over 67%, were between the ages of 26 and 49. In addition, 22.7% of participants were 25 or younger while 8.8% were between the ages of 50 and 64. About 1% of participants were 65 or older. In addition, 52.2% of participants were male while 47.8% were female. The majority of participants, or 68.5%, were unmarried. In contrast, almost 30% were married while the remaining participants were divorced, separated, or widowed.

iv. Statewide Live Near Your Work Program The Live Near Your Work (LNYW) program began in FY 2004 and is administered by DSHA. The program provides down payment and/or closing cost assistance to encourage eligible employees to purchase homes near their place of employment. Participating employers contribute $1,000 for each participating employee, which is matched by the State (DSHA) and the local jurisdiction, if they participate. For homes located in communities targeted for revitalization, the grant from each party may be increased, bringing the total amount of assistance provided to as much as $5,000.

Race # of Applicants % of Total Applicants

White 783 60.7%

Black 401 31.1%

Undisclosed 56 4.3%

Hispanic 35 2.7%

Asian 12 0.9%

Other 2 0.2%

American Indian 1 0.1%

TOTAL 1,290 100.0%

Source: Delaware State Housing Authority, January 2011

OBSERVATION: The Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (SFMRB) Program is a valuable resource for households throughout the State that are interested in purchasing a home. Since 2008, the program has assisted almost 1,300 households to achieve their dream of homeownership. SFMRB program participants represent a wide range of households, including several members of the protected classes, such as Black and Hispanic households and single‐parent households. DSHA should continue to reach out to members of the protected classes through the SFMRB program to help them achieve their dream of owning a home and building wealth.


July 2011 Page 509

To qualify for the LNYW program, a borrower cannot exceed the gross household income requirements as outlined in the program guidelines. These income limits vary by county and by the number of persons per household. For example, a 1-2 person household in New Castle County cannot earn more than $77,800 per year while the same type of household cannot earn more than $70,800 per year in Kent or Sussex Counties. For households with 3 or more persons, the income limits in New Castle County and Kent and Sussex Counties are $89,470 and $81,420, respectively.

There are 19 employers throughout the State that participate in the LNYW program, including the University of Delaware, Wesley College, St. Francis Hospital, Seawatch International, Perdue Farms, Inc., Westside Family Healthcare, and Decrane Aerospace/ Pats Aircraft Completions. In addition, several local units of government provide matching funds, including the City of Wilmington, the City of Milford, and the Town of Georgetown.

As part of the program requirements, employees must complete a HUD-approved homeownership education/housing counseling course, must maintain the home as their primary residence, and the first mortgage must be a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with no cash out or back to the borrower. In addition, the employee must obtain a first mortgage through a participating lender. There are 15 participating lenders, including PNC Mortgage, Chase Home Finance, Bank of America, MetLife Home Loans, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, and the Wilmington Trust Company, to name a few. Homes purchased must be located within employer-identified areas, which typically includes an area not to exceed a 3-mile radius from the employer’s worksite.

DSHA promotes the LNYW program to employers statewide through Chamber of Commerce functions, advertising, press releases, and by sponsoring informational booths at various community events and housing-related conferences. Since the program’s inception in 2004, there have been 62 employee closings throughout the State. An additional 10 closings are projected for FY 2011.

Overall, the LNYW program provides meaningful benefits to all involved parties. For example, employers realize a reduction in turnover and recruitment costs while local jurisdictions are revitalized through increased homeownership. In addition, everyone benefits from reduced commute times and less traffic congestion. Most importantly, employees are given an opportunity to achieve homeownership and to build wealth.


July 2011 Page 510

v. Delaware Growth Management Policies The purpose of the Strategies for State Policies and Spending document, updated in 2010 and formally adopted by Governor Markell, is to coordinate land use decision- making with the provision of infrastructure and services in a manner that makes the best use of Delaware’s natural and fiscal resources. The 2010 update to the Strategies for State Policies and Spending builds on the groundwork previously established in the 1999 and 2004 versions of the document by the Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues. The 2010 update includes the same area designations as outlined in the 2004 update.

Levels 1 and 2 identify areas that are most suitable for growth and where the State can make the most cost-effective infrastructure investments in terms of schools, roads, and public safety. Level 3 areas are those locations where growth is anticipated by local, county, and/or state plans in the longer term, or areas that may have environmental or other constraints to development. Level 4 areas are more rural in character and include areas where the state will make investments that will help to preserve the existing rural character by promoting open space and agricultural uses. In addition, out of play areas include areas that generally cannot be developed.

Strategies for State Policies and Spending outlines goals for the aforementioned investment areas in the following categories: agriculture, economic development, education, housing, natural resources and the environment, state facilities and investments, and transportation. Levels 1 through 3 are areas in which state policies will support growth activities, with Levels 1 and 2 being the primary focus. Within DSHA’s policies, tax credit projects that involve new housing construction are permitted in investment area Levels 1, 2, and 3. Moreover, State policies will support agriculture and open space activities in Level 4 areas, including the promotion of the agriculture industry support activities. The following table provides a summary of the investment areas used to guide spending, planning, and development throughout Delaware, along with the specific housing strategies for each area level.

OBSERVATION: The Live Near Your Work (LNYW) Program is a valuable tool for area employers, employees, and local jurisdictions. The program provides incentives, in the form of a down payment and/or closing cost assistance, to potential homebuyers who are employed through participating employers. DSHA should continue to offer this program as a way to expand housing choice and to provide homeownership opportunities to income‐eligible households. DSHA should also continue to recruit additional employers, lenders, and local jurisdictions to participate in the program.


July 2011 Page 511

Figure 7-5 Statewide Investment Areas

Map 7-1 on the following page compares the locations of Investment Areas 1, 2, and 3 with areas of minority concentration throughout the State.

The majority of New Castle County is composed of Level 1 and 2 areas while the majority of Kent and Sussex Counties include Level 4 and out of play areas. Nonetheless, there are ample Level 1 and 2 communities throughout the State where housing investments can occur in non-impacted areas. The following chart provides an overview of the Level 1 and 2 areas by county.

Investment Area

Description of Area Housing Strategies

Level 1

Municipalities, towns, or urban/urbanizing places in counties; generally higher‐density with a variety of transportation opportunities available

Support the development of a broad mix of housing options to meet the needs of people of all abilities, income levels, and housing types; Coordinate the provision of housing with the location of jobs, transit, services, and infrastructure; Multi‐family housing should be compatible with a community's character; Emphasize infi l l and redevelopment of vacant and underutil ized parcels within developed areas; Util ize collaborative measures to restore and improve existing neighborhoods through a variety of acquisition, code enforcement, rehabilitation, and community development measures.

Level 2

Composed of less developed areas within municipalities, rapidly growing areas in the counties that have or will have public water and wastewater services and util ities, areas which are generally adjacent to or near Level 1 areas, smaller towns and rural vil lages, and suburban areas with public water, wastewater, and util ity services.

Support residential growth supplemented with infrastructure and essential neighborhood services; Continue to encourage a broad mix of housing options, such as small single‐family detached, duplexes, and townhomes, to meet the diverse needs of all income ranges and household types; Rehabilitation efforts are needed to ensure safe and habitable housing; Restore homeownership in areas impacted by foreclosure crisis.

Level 3

Lands which are in the long term growth plans of counties or municipalities where development is not necessary to accommodate expected population growth; lands which are adjacent to or intermingled with fast growing areas within counties or municipalities which are otherwise categorized as Levels 1 or 2.

Level 3 Areas are characterized by low density and rural homes, which may or may not be serviced by public util ities; New housing development, in the short term, would represent "leap frog" development which would be undesirable; In the longer term, these areas may be desirable for a variety of housing types, styles, and densities in conjunction with local government comprehensive plans; May be appropriate for compact development once Level 2 areas are built out and util ities are available; May be appropriate as low density housing that serves as a transition from more urban/suburban areas to the rural areas of Level 4; In relation to partially built subdivisions, strategies will include sunsetting unbuilt subdivisions, converting some of the partially built subdivisions back to agricultural use, or replatting for a smaller, but viable market segment.

Level 4

Includes many unincorporated communities; these areas are predominantly agricultural and contain agribusiness activities, farm complexes, and small settlements; these areas also boast undeveloped natural areas, such as forestlands and large recreational uses, such as state and county parks and fish and wildlife reserves.

Construction of new homes is discouraged in Level 4 areas; Housing programs will focus on existing housing in regard to maintenance, health, and safety; programs will continue to promote revitalization of these areas through housing rehabilitation.

Out of Play (OOP)

Publicly‐owned lands, lands for which serious legal constraints on development are identified, and lands in some form of permanent open‐space protection.

These areas are not at all available for development or for redevelopment.

Source: 2010 Strategies for State Policies and Spending ‐ Draft dated 6/3/10; http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/strategies/draft_2010_state_strategies_update.pdf

Map 7-1: Comparison of Investment Strategy Areas and Areas of Minority Concentration in the State of Delaware

Delaware Statewide Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

LegendDelaware Bay/ Atlantic OceanHispanic ConcentrationBlack ConcentrationOther Census Tracts

2010 State Strategy LevelLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Out of Play

Salem

City of Wilmington

City of Dover

Upper New Castle County


July 2011 Page 512

Figure 7-6 Level 1 and 2 Areas by County

Overall, the Strategies for State Policies and Spending 2010 update helps to create a unified vision towards a balance of growth and preservation priorities that all levels of government in Delaware can utilize to allocate resources. The strategies outlined in the 2010 update provide a framework for infrastructure, service, housing, and development investments by various state agencies. Furthermore, the strategies also provide guidance on regional planning issues for county and local jurisdictions and promote regional collaboration.

vi. Uniform Definition of Impaction/Areas of Concentration In their most recent Five Year Consolidated Plans (CP) submitted to HUD, both the City of Wilmington and New Castle County defined areas of racial or ethnic minority concentration as geographic areas where the percentage of a specific minority or ethnic group is 10 percentage points higher than in the jurisdiction overall. In contrast, in its most recent Five Year CP, the City of Dover defined an area of concentration as a neighborhood or development in which more than 30% of the population has a common race, ethnicity, or income. DSHA did not provide a concrete definition of areas of minority concentration in its FY 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan.

County Level 1 and 2 Areas

New CastleWilmington, Newark, New Castle, Newport, Elsmere, Bellefonte, Arden, Middletown, Odessa, Delaware City, Smyrna, and surrounding areas

Kent Smyrna, Cheswold, Dover, Camden, Woodside, Wyoing, Milford, Magnolia, Viola, Felton, Frederica, Harrington, and surrounding areas

Sussex

Milford, Greenwood, Bridgevil le, Georgetown, Dagsboro, Lewes, Shelbyvil le, Delmar, Seaford, Laurel, Blades, Millsboro, Bethany Beach, Dewey Beach, Rehoboth Beach, Ocean View, Millvil le, and surrounding areas

OBSERVATION: The 2010 Update to the Strategies for State Policies and Spending provides a collaborative framework to guide the investment of funds throughout the State that promotes housing choice. Specifically, the 2010 Update identifies areas that should be targeted for development, redevelopment, conservation, open space, and/or preservation. Housing growth, in terms of new construction, is focused in Level 1 and 2 areas, which include a mix of both impacted and non‐impacted communities. Whenever possible, state, county, and local government entities should allocate funds towards the construction of new, affordable multi‐family housing units in non‐impacted areas in order to affirmatively further fair housing and promote greater housing choice.


July 2011 Page 513

Within this AI, areas of racial or ethnic minority concentration are defined as geographic areas where the percentage of a specific minority or ethnic group is 10 percentage points higher than in the jurisdiction overall.

The following table provides a summary of all racial and ethnic areas of concentration throughout the State, as defined in this AI.

Figure 7-7 Areas of Concentration Throughout the State

In the interest of statewide consistency and to enhance regional collaboration in promoting greater fair housing choice, a uniform definition of impacted areas should be adopted and utilized by all entitlement entities throughout the State. It is recommended that the New Castle County and City of Wilmington definition be adopted, as it is used extensively throughout this AI in reference to impacted versus non-impacted areas.

A uniform definition of areas of concentration will provide continuity on the use of the terms “impacted” versus “non-impacted” areas and will help to develop a consistent statewide approach to affirmatively further fair housing and to promote housing choice.

Areas of Black Concentration

(by Census Tract)

Areas of Hispanic Concentration

(by Census Tract)

City of Wilmington1, 2, 3, 5, 6.01, 6.02, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21 22, 23, 25, 26, and 129

New Castle County

24, 27, 101.01, 101.02, 107, 147.06, 149.02, 149.03, 149.05, 154, 155, 156, 160, 163.02, 162.02, and 169.02

27, 122, 123, 129, 132, 137, 152, and 156

City of Dover 406 and 414 None

Kent County

402.03, 405, 406, 407, 408, 410, 412, 413, 414, 415, and 425 None

Sussex County502, 504.04, 507.01, and 518.02 505.02 and 514

OBSERVATION: In the interest of statewide consistency and to enhance regional collaboration in promoting greater fair housing choice among the protected classes, a uniform definition of areas of concentration should be adopted and utilized by all entitlement communities throughout the State. It is recommended that the New Castle County and City of Wilmington definition be adopted, as it is used extensively throughout this AI in reference to impacted versus non‐impacted areas. A uniform definition of areas of concentration will promote greater understanding and provide continuity on the use of the terms “impacted” versus “non‐impacted” areas and will contribute to a consistent approach to affirmatively further fair housing and to promote greater housing choice throughout the State.


July 2011 Page 514

vii. Communities of Opportunity Non-impacted communities throughout the State of Delaware can also be referred to as communities of opportunity. In order to affirmatively further fair housing and to promote greater housing choice, at least some of the development of affordable and accessible housing should be directed towards communities of opportunity. Jurisdictions receiving allocations of entitlement funds should aim to balance investments in both impacted and non-impacted neighborhoods.

There are several communities of opportunity throughout the State, particularly throughout the three counties. Due to the high number of impacted census tracts (19 of 29), the non-impacted areas within the City of Wilmington are somewhat limited. In contrast, there are numerous communities of opportunity throughout the City of Dover.

viii. Impact Fees Impact fees are charges on new development to finance the construction or expansion of off-site capital improvements that are necessitated by and benefit the new development. Impact fees have become an important method in infrastructure financing and an essential element of local government efforts to fund infrastructure or public services. Often times, these fees help to assist in the development of needed parks, schools, roads, sewer improvements, water treatments, utilities, libraries, and public safety buildings to newly developed areas.

Many states recognize and allow the use of impact fees as a way to regulate land use. Title 29, Chapter 91, Subchapter II of the Delaware State Code outlines the development and use of impact fees at the state and county levels. The code defines an impact fee as a “payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve new growth and development.” The Code also enables counties to establish impact fees for services which the county will bear increased costs of development.

One drawback associated with impact fees is that they can discourage new housing construction, particularly projects that are undertaken by non-profit housing developers and community development corporations such as Habitat for Humanity (several chapters throughout Delaware), the

OBSERVATION: Overall, entitlement jurisdictions throughout the State should aim to balance investments in both impacted and non‐impacted neighborhoods. Non‐impacted neighborhoods, also referred to as communities of opportunity, are areas that do not contain concentrations of racial, ethnic, or LMI persons. Balancing affordable housing investments in impacted and non‐impacted areas will promote greater housing choice, particularly for members of the protected classes.


July 2011 Page 515

Wilmington Housing Partnership, and other similar organizations. In order to encourage new construction of affordable rental and homeownership housing, county and local government entities should substantially reduce or preferably waive impact fees for affordable housing units. Some municipalities and counties currently waive or reduce fees in order to enhance the feasibility of affordable housing developments.

In the City of Dover, impact fees for new construction are $5,763 per equivalent dwelling unit65, which is a significant amount of funds for an organization such as Habitat for Humanity that endeavors to control costs and provide affordable housing for extremely low and very low income households earning 50% or less of the area median income. While the City has no control over the Kent County portion of its impact fees, it can choose to reduce and/or waive its City impact fees, but only in designated downtown areas and only for mixed use, multi-story larger buildings. The City relies on fee revenues to fund sewer and water improvements.

Kent County adopted its Adequate Facilities Ordinance in October 2006. Impact fees listed in this ordinance include fees for schools, emergency services, and building permit fee surcharges. In regard to schools, there is a per student fee ranging from $4,174-$6,888. This fee is charged to a developer prior to the issuance of a building permit and is paid directly to the school district. The fee is based on the number of students generated by the development and the overall capacity of the school district. The emergency services fee in Kent County is $67 per dwelling unit. Kent County also has two building permit fee surcharges, as follows:

• One-fourth of 1% of the building permit valuation to provide assistance to volunteer fire and ambulance companies, and

• 1.25% of building construction costs to provide capital funding to the school district.

Impact fees in New Castle County vary based on the type of land use, specifically residential vs. non-residential uses, and are assessed for public facilities, safety, and services, including parks and special facilities, libraries, county facilities, emergency medical services (EMS), fire and rescue, and law enforcement. Impact fees for residential uses range from $1,157 per housing unit for a single-family detached dwelling to $1,044 per housing unit for a single-family attached dwelling. The impact fee for all other housing units, including single-wide mobile homes, is $762 per unit. Impact fees for non-residential uses vary from a high of $463 per 1,000 square feet of floor area for office/institutional uses ranging from 10,000-50,000 square feet to a low of $148 per 1,000 square feet of floor area for warehousing.

The City of Wilmington does not have a set rate schedule for impact fees because the City is predominantly built-out and the existing infrastructure necessary for development and construction is already in place. The City’s

65 $1,900 City sewer fee, $2,100 City water fee, $1,679 Kent County Sewer Fee, and $84 administration fee.


July 2011 Page 516

water and sewer hook-up fees are typically assessed when new construction must tap in to existing lines or build new lines. In regard to infill housing development in Wilmington, many developers reuse the existing sewer and water lateral lines.

Sussex County’s sewer and water system connection charges vary by area and by the specific water or sewer district in which a particular house or development is located. System connection charges are highest in the Dagsboro-Frankford Sewer District and the Bay View Estates Sewer District, where the fees total $6,223 and $5,937, respectively, per equivalent dwelling unit. On the other hand, the lowest connection fees in the County are in the Dewey Beach Water District, where the total system connection charge is $942 per equivalent dwelling unit. Sussex County offers several programs to provide assistance to lower-income households to make the connection charges more affordable. For example, the County offers a sewer hook-up/connection fee grant of up to $2,500 for qualified households. In addition, through its CDBG program, the County provides grants for the installation of sewer hook-ups to the County sewer system to qualified households.

B. Housing Mobility

i. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Portability One of the primary effects of housing discrimination is the perpetuation of segregated residential patterns. In many communities, neighborhoods historically called home by generations of minorities have been the lowest income, highest poverty neighborhoods with the fewest amenities and most substandard housing. Whether “trapped” in their neighborhoods by a lack of resources to relocate, a lack of knowledge of what lies beyond, a perceived or real fear of moving to a “White” neighborhood with better opportunities, or public policies meant to maintain segregation, many minorities have remained in areas where crime is higher, grocery stores are lacking, jobs are non-existent and schools are noteworthy for substandard scores.

Recent studies on housing mobility reveal that access to opportunities for employment, education, and health care are influenced by housing location. For families who choose to move to lower poverty, higher opportunity neighborhoods, the pay-off can be significant. For example, a national five-city experimental mobility program (Moving to Opportunity) reported that many participating low income families experienced improved physical and mental health when they moved to substantially lower poverty communities. Adult obesity was lowered and participants experienced marked declines in

OBSERVATION: County and local government entities throughout the State of Delaware should reduce and/or waive their respective sewer, water, and/or public facilities and services impact fees for area developers and non‐profit organizations seeking to build affordable housing units, including both rental and owner units.


July 2011 Page 517

psychological distress and depression. In addition, attendance at lower poverty, racially integrated schools tended to improve critical thinking skills and academic achievement among children. Finally, children in lower poverty suburban areas were less likely to drop out of school and more likely to attend college.66

However, in order for a housing mobility program to be successful, studies also show that housing alone cannot facilitate true upward mobility. In addition, supportive services must follow the families to help them adjust to their new way of life in their new neighborhood. The core elements of a highly functioning housing mobility program include, but are not limited to:

• Recruitment that attracts eligible participants and minimizes ineligible or disinterested applicants

• Recruitment and retention of landlords with rental units located in neighborhoods of opportunity

• Pre-move counseling, intake proceedings and briefing of potential participants

• Housing search assistance • Post-move counseling • Second-move counseling, and • A holistic approach to client assistance which engages all family

members, and ensures sufficient counselor contact through high counselor-client ratios.67

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program offers a family the opportunity to consider rental housing locations that extend beyond their current familiar boundaries. The voucher enables a family to secure a rental unit on the private housing market, paying no more than 30% of their income on rent. There are five agencies in Delaware that administer Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs, either through a public housing authority or a municipal department. These include the City of Newark, New Castle County, the City of Wilmington, and DSHA. Each program has its own set of policies and procedures, including preferences for admission, payment standards for persons with disabilities or locations outside of concentrated areas, and portability of vouchers to other jurisdictions.

While it is possible to move between jurisdictions as a voucher holder, it is not easy to navigate five separate sets of policies, procedures, and qualifying preferences.

Due to the compact scale of Delaware, and the close interconnections between housing, employment, transportation, educational facilities, and

66 Kami Kruckenberg et al, “Connecting Families to Opportunity: A Resource Guide for Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrators” (Poverty & Race Research Action Council, July 2009). 67 Kami Kruckenberg et al, “Connecting Families to Opportunity: A Resource Guide for Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrators” (Poverty & Race Research Action Council, July 2009).


July 2011 Page 518

cultural amenities, the residents of the region could conceivably benefit from uniform Section 8 programmatic regulations. With identical administrative plans for the five Section 8 administering agencies, the chances of lower income households achieving housing mobility become much greater. Specifically, the coordination of portability policies would create, in essence, one regional Section 8 market in which voucher holders could move freely from one community to another. This is an action that would expand fair housing choice.

Inter-agency collaboration relative to the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program could lead to other measures that expand fair housing choice in the region.

ii. Regional Collaboration to Remedy Concentrations in Wilmington Wilmington is Delaware’s largest City and the epicenter of business and industry in the region. As such, the City and its suburban neighbors are inextricably linked. A healthy and vibrant urban core benefits the region. Conversely, any perceived shortcomings or problems in the City will adversely impact the surrounding suburbs.

Businesses reach investment decisions on the basis of a variety of factors, including the relative tax burden, the economic and physical stability of the community, the ability to recruit a qualified workforce, a sense of economic and personal well-being, and opportunities for cultural, educational, and recreational enrichment. The regional housing market reflects prospects for continued economic growth, personal prosperity and the availability of good schools and high quality neighborhoods. The region’s housing market expands when these factors are positive. Conversely, the market contracts whenever one or more of these indicators turns negative.

The City of Wilmington is not unlike other central cities of a major metropolitan area. Historically, Wilmington has housed the region’s poor and disenfranchised. For example, over 41% of Black households and 48.3% of Hispanic households living in Wilmington earn less than $25,000 annually. Comparatively, only 27% of While households earn less than $25,000. The percentage of Black and Hispanic households earning less than $25,000 annually is significantly higher in Wilmington than in other areas of

OBSERVATION: Section 8 voucher holders are currently required to navigate five different policies in order to port between jurisdictions. Inter‐agency collaboration between the Section 8 program providers, which would include a uniform set of policies and procedures, could conceivably expand fair housing choice by creating, in essence, one regional Section 8 market in which voucher holders could move freely from one community to another. Section 8 administrative agencies in Delaware should collaborate in the provision of support services that enhance inter‐jurisdictional mobility on the part of voucher holders. DSHA’s Moving to Work (MTW) program contains regulatory requirements regarding work and case management that will have to be considered during this process.


July 2011 Page 519

the State, including the Urban County of New Castle County and the Balance of State. In addition, the median household income (MHI) for Black households in Wilmington is $28,997, which is equivalent to only 54.5% of that for Whites ($53,249). The MHI for Hispanic households in the City is even lower, as these households earn $26,372. Heavy concentrations of minority poor normally coincide with high crime rates, drug addiction, family disintegration, and welfare dependency.

Despite its role as a major center of banking, commerce, and culture, the number of manufacturing jobs in the City has declined. Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of the civilian population aged 16 years or older employed in the manufacturing industry declined from 16% to 9.6%.68 According to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, this percentage has since further declined to 7.7%. Many of the region’s low wage jobs can now be found in suburban locations near shopping malls and along highway commercial corridors.

Although the Wilmington Housing Authority has taken steps to eliminate obsolete public housing, over 67% of Delaware’s public housing units are located in the City. Furthermore, the Homeless Planning Council of Delaware (HPC) estimates that over the course of one year, there are 6,758 homeless persons in the State. 69 Of those, 73% are located in New Castle County, many of which are concentrated in the City of Wilmington. These factors contribute to a pattern of housing segregation in the City of Wilmington.

The City of Wilmington was the most segregated jurisdiction in the State in 2000, with a Black/White index of 65.3, a Hispanic/White index of 61.4, and an Asian/White index of 45.1. The index of dissimilarity is rated on a scale from 0 to 100, in which a score of 0 corresponds to perfect integration and a score of 100 represents total segregation.70 The index is typically interpreted as the percentage of the minority population that would have to move in order for a community or neighborhood to achieve full integration. A dissimilarity index of less than 30 indicates a low degree of segregation, while values between 30 and 60 indicate moderate segregation, and values above 60 indicate high segregation. By comparison, the City of Dover and Kent County were both moderately segregated, while New Castle County and Sussex County had low degrees of segregation.

Since 1990, the White population in Wilmington has decreased while the minority population has experienced rapid growth. Overall, White flight from the City to surrounding suburbs in New Castle County describes the overall trends in migration over the last two decades.

68 U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 STF3 data; 2000 SF3 data. 69 Delaware Statewide Housing Needs Assessment, 2008-2012. 70 The index of dissimilarity is a commonly used demographic tool for measuring inequality. For a given geographic area, the index is equal to 1/2 ∑ ABS [(b/B)-(A/a)], where b is the subgroup population of a census tract, B is the total subgroup population in a city, a is the majority population of a census tract, and A is the total majority population in the city. ABS refers to the absolute value of the calculation that follows.


July 2011 Page 520

As in other metro areas, Wilmington is being abandoned to the Black poor who, ultimately, become the victims of such abandonment. Nineteen (19) of the City’s 29 CTs are racially and ethnically concentrated. Since most of the City is impacted, the City of Wilmington is very limited in its ability to expand fair housing choice outside of areas of racial and ethnic concentration. Therefore, a broader public policy discussion of poverty and race will be required in order to make progress on this issue. To be certain, it is difficult for suburban officials to think of the high concentration of poverty among black residents in Wilmington as a regional problem. Local officials rarely voluntarily agree to absorb the outmigration of the minority urban poor. But without the active support and participation of surrounding jurisdictions, it is unrealistic to believe that poverty, crime, unemployment and welfare dependency in Wilmington can be abated.

An important first step in the discussion was spearheaded by the preparation of a regional fair share housing strategy by the Delaware Housing Coalition. This study identifies geographic areas within the State that have a deficit of affordable housing. The purpose of the study is to encourage the creation of public policies aimed at a more equitable sharing of affordable housing throughout the State.

iii. Lack of Accessible Housing Throughout the State A common observation noted throughout the individual jurisdictional sections of this document is the overall inadequacy of the current affordable and accessible housing supply to meet demand. During the stakeholder interview process involved in the preparation of the AI, several advocacy organizations stated there is an overall lack of affordable, accessible housing throughout the State and that many accessible units are concentrated in Wilmington and Dover.

While there are a substantial number of individuals and/or families with a disability on the various PHA Section 8 and public housing waiting lists, it is impossible for area Housing Authorities and local and county officials to know how many of those on the waiting list have a mental disability or a physical disability that requires a mobility-accessible unit. According to many PHAs throughout the State, non-disabled households continue to occupy the majority of their accessible units. These residents are required to sign an agreement agreeing to move to the first available unit whenever the mobility-accessible unit is needed by a person with a disability.

OBSERVATION: Without the active support and participation of surrounding jurisdictions throughout the State, it is unrealistic to believe that poverty, crime, unemployment, and welfare dependency can be abated in the City of Wilmington. Unless the various localities collaborate to develop a strategy to address these issues, the historic pattern of segregation in Wilmington may adversely affect the regional economy and housing market.


July 2011 Page 521

Currently, DSHA is the only PHA in Delaware that collects data on its applicants’ disabilities during the application process. Within DSHA’s combined public housing and Section 8 HCV application form, there is a section titled “Special Unit Requirements Questionnaire.” This section asks applicants if they or another family member are in need of an accessible unit, including details on specific amenities and features required, such as a separate bedroom, a unit for vision or hearing impaired, barrier-free apartments, etc. Having this section on its application form allows DSHA to better track and monitor the overall need for accessible units. As of April 1, 2011, there were 63 applicants that required a barrier-free (i.e. wheelchair) unit. Another 79 applicants requested either a unit for the hearing impaired for a unit for the vision impaired.

To assist residents throughout the State and those with disabilities to find adequate housing that meets their needs, DSHA offers the Affordable and Accessible Online Apartment Locator Service, a searchable database found on DSHA’s website. The locator service features over 200 affordable and/or accessible properties scattered throughout the State. An array of information can be obtained for each site, including accessibility features, site location, rent prices, and other useful information.

DSHA should be commended for its efforts to provide an online housing locator for residents to use to assess their affordable and accessible housing options. In addition to the locator service, DSHA also has an Affordable Rental Housing Sites Directory that is available for download on its website and that can also be mailed to those seeking housing that do not have access to the Internet.

Currently, the various PHAs and entitlement communities statewide do not have an appropriate method in place to measure the overall need for affordable, accessible housing. Census data and other sources of statistical

OBSERVATION: In order to more accurately and efficiently track the number of persons with mobility impairments on PHA waiting lists, PHAs throughout the State should add the following questions to their respective housing applications:

• Do you or any member of your family require a dwelling unit that is barrier‐free and accessible to persons with mobility impairments (for example, a wheelchair accessible unit)?

• Are you or other members of your family able to go up and down stairs unassisted? • Do you or any member of your family require a dwelling unit with features designed to

assist persons with hearing impairments? • Do you or any member of your family require a dwelling unit with features designed to

assist persons with visual impairments? With the addition of these questions, PHAs should be able to distinguish between applicants with mental versus physical disabilities. Moreover, data collected from the results of this question can be used to more effectively determine the need for mobility‐accessible units in Delaware.


July 2011 Page 522

information are insufficient to measure the demand for accessible housing. Primary research is required to analyze needs. This may involve consultations with public agencies, PHAs, and advocacy organizations, as well as consumer surveys aimed at the disability community. In order to more accurately gauge the number of persons throughout the State that are in need of mobility-accessible housing units, DSHA should partner with other entitlement communities to conduct a statewide study to determine the supply/demand characteristics of housing for persons with mobility impairments. The results of this study should be reflected in the Section 504 Needs Assessment and Transition Plan for each PHA.

C. Taxes Taxes impact housing affordability. While not an impediment to fair housing choice, real estate taxes can impact housing options. Tax increases can be burdensome to low-income homeowners, and increases are usually passed on to renters through rent increases. Tax rates for specific districts and the assessed value of all properties are the two major calculations used to determine revenues collected by a jurisdiction. Determining a jurisdiction’s relative housing affordability, in part, can be accomplished by analyzing the local real estate tax burden.

However, straight comparison of tax rates to determine whether a property is affordable or unaffordable gives an incomplete and unrealistic picture of property taxes. Local governments with higher property tax rates, for example, may have higher rates because the assessed values of properties in the community are low, resulting in a fairly low tax burden for any given property. For example, upon first glance at the higher millage rates in areas throughout Sussex County, one might assume that Sussex County’s taxes are extremely high. However, this is not the case because Sussex County taxes property at 50% of its 1974 appraised value. In all of the communities surrounding a jurisdiction, comparable rates for various classes of property (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) are assigned to balance each community’s unique set of resources and needs. These factors and others that are out of the municipality’s control must be considered when performing tax rate comparisons.

Real property taxes in Delaware are imposed at the local level to fund municipal governments, county governments, and school districts. There are no state level property taxes in Delaware and only real property is subject to taxation. While there are exceptions, the majority of tax rates are the same for all types of property, including residential, commercial, and industrial. Exceptions may include property tax incentives for seniors or certain types of businesses. In addition, agricultural land is treated differently in certain jurisdictions.

OBSERVATION: In order to more accurately gauge the number of persons throughout the State that are in need of mobility‐accessible housing units, DSHA should partner with other entitlement communities to conduct a statewide study to determine the supply/demand characteristics of housing for persons with mobility impairments.


July 2011 Page 523

The three Delaware counties have different rates of assessment, tax a different proportion of that assessment, and tax at different rates. Municipal and school district tax rates also vary throughout the State. With a few exceptions, municipalities and school districts use the county property assessment and assessment ratios when imposing property taxes. Tax rates are typically lower in unincorporated areas of the State due to the lack of a municipal tax in these areas.

Taxes rates in the State of Delaware range from a low of 1.7886 mills in Viola, located in Kent County, to a high of 6.2216 mills in the Town of Georgetown, located in Sussex County. While the millage rates in Sussex County are significantly higher than in other parts of the State, Sussex County taxes property at 50% of the 1974 appraised value. Thus, tax payments are actually much lower in Sussex County than in other areas of the State.

The significance of higher property taxes on residential properties is that the amount of taxes must be factored into the question of affordability. If a property owner is considering the purchase of a home, estimating the monthly mortgage payment must include the mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, and homeowner’s insurance.

Kent, Sussex, and New Castle Counties, along with the City of Wilmington and the City of Dover, all offer tax relief programs for senior citizens over the age of 65 and/or permanently disabled citizens. To qualify, residents must meet certain income requirements established by the municipal government. In all of the local entities, property tax exemptions (full and partial) are the primary form of tax relief. In addition, the State of Delaware also offers the State Senior Citizen School Property Tax Credit Program, which provides homeowners age 65 or over with a tax credit against regular school property taxes of 50% (up to $500).

The following narrative provides additional detail on the tax rates in Wilmington, New Castle County, Dover, and the Balance of State (Kent and Sussex Counties).

i. City of Wilmington Property taxes in the City of Wilmington include a New Castle County tax, a local City tax, a school district tax, a crossing guard tax, and a vocational tech tax. Tax rates are levied on every $100 dollars of assessed value. Figure 7-8 details the composite tax rates and estimated tax liability for a home with a market value of $100,000 in 2010 in each of the school districts within the City.


July 2011 Page 524

Figure 7-8 Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes in the City of Wilmington per $100,000 Market Value,

2010

The City, County, and Vo-Tech tax rates are fixed rates that apply citywide. The school rates and crossing guard rates vary by school district. Within the City of Wilmington, the lowest tax rate per $100 assessment is the Colonial School District (3.55817). On the contrary, the highest tax rate is in the Brandywine School District (3.98066).

In Wilmington, tax rates range from 3.55817 mills to 3.98066 mills. Taxes are based on 100% of the July 1, 1983 fair market value. Compared to other areas throughout the State, estimated tax payments in Wilmington are the highest. For example, the annual taxes for a house with a market value of $100,000 in Wilmington would be $3,500-$4,000, depending on the school district in which the house is located.

ii. New Castle County Property taxes in New Castle County include a New Castle County tax, a local City tax (for incorporated areas only), a school district tax, a crossing guard tax, and a vocational tech tax. Figure 7-9 details the composite tax rates and estimated tax liability for a home with a market value of $100,000 in 2010 for all the County’s incorporated areas, categorized by school district.

School District

County Rate

School Rate

City RateCross ing

Guard RateVo‐Tech Rate

Tota l Tax Rate Per $100

Assessment

Estimated Taxes per $100,000 Market Value

Brandywine 0.2436 1.8165 1.7670 0.01656 0.1370 3.98066 3,980.66$

Chris tiana 0.2436 1.6620 1.7670 0.01965 0.1370 3.82925 3,829.25$

Colonia l 0.2436 1.3960 1.7670 0.01457 0.1370 3.55817 3,558.17$

Red Clay 0.2436 1.6870 1.7670 0.01737 0.1370 3.85197 3,851.97$

Source: City of Wilmington Tax Office; Delaware Economic Development Office


July 2011 Page 525

Figure 7-9 Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value in Incorporated Areas,

2010

Residential property tax rates in the incorporated areas of New Castle County (excluding the City of Wilmington) range from 2.0540 in Smyrna to 3.0567 in Newport. Due to the City of Wilmington’s local tax rate structure, the City of Wilmington’s tax rates are significantly higher than in other incorporated areas across the County. The significance of higher property taxes on residential properties is that the amount of taxes must be factored into the question of affordability. If a property owner is considering the purchase of a home, estimating the monthly mortgage payment must include the mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, and homeowner’s insurance.

School Dis trict / Local i ty

County Rate

School Rate

City RateCross ing

Guard RateVo‐Tech Rate


Assessment


Middletown 0.2529 1.4527 0.3000 0.02278 0.1370 2.1654 2,165.40$

Odessa

Res identia l 0.3640 1.4527 0.2000 0.02278 0.1370 2.1765 2,176.50$

Bus iness 0.3640 1.4527 0.7500 0.02278 0.1370 2.7265 2,726.50$

Townsend 0.3826 1.4527 0.2600 0.02278 0.1370 2.2551 2,551.00$

Arden 0.5821 1.8165 0.0000 0.01656 0.1370 2.5522 2,552.00$

Ardencroft 0.5821 1.8165 0.0000 0.01656 0.1370 2.5522 2,552.00$

Ardentown 0.5821 1.8165 0.0000 0.01656 0.1370 2.5522 2,552.00$

Bel lefonte 0.3948 1.8165 0.4500 0.01656 0.1370 2.8149 2,814.90$

Wilmington 0.2436 1.8165 1.7670 0.01656 0.1370 3.9807 3,980.70$

Newark 0.2436 1.6620 0.6458 0.01965 0.1370 2.7081 2,708.10$

Wilmington 0.2436 1.6620 1.7670 0.01965 0.1370 3.8293 3,829.30$

Delaware City 0.2529 1.3960 1.0900 0.01457 0.1370 2.8905 2,890.50$

New Castle 0.2529 1.3960 1.2000 0.01457 0.1370 3.0005 3,000.50$

Wilmington 0.2436 1.3960 1.7670 0.01457 0.1370 3.5582 3,558.20$

Elsmere

Res identia l 0.3193 1.6870 0.8750 0.01737 0.1370 3.0357 3,035.70$

Bus iness 0.3193 1.6870 1.2000 0.01737 0.1370 3.3607 3,360.70$

Newport 0.2838 1.6870 0.9315 0.01737 0.1370 3.0567 3,056.70$

Wilmington 0.2436 1.6870 1.7670 0.01737 0.1370 3.8520 3,852.00$

Smyrna 0.7018 0.9970 0.2526 0.0000 0.1026 2.0540 2,054.00$

Source: New Castle County Tax Office; Delaware Economic Development Office

Appoquinimink

Brandywine

Chris tiana

Colonia l

Red Clay

Smyrna


July 2011 Page 526

Figure 7-10 details the composite tax rates and estimated tax liability for a home with a market value of $100,000 in 2010 for all the County’s unincorporated areas, categorized by school district.

Figure 7-10 Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value in Unincorporated Areas,

2010

Due to the lack of a local tax, tax rates in the unincorporated areas of New Castle County are lower than in the incorporated areas. Among the unincorporated areas of the County, taxes are lowest in areas located within the Smyrna School District and are highest in areas located within the Brandywine School District.

iii. City of Dover Property taxes in the City of Dover include a Kent County tax, a local City tax, a school district tax, a library tax, and a vocational tech tax. Figure 7-11 details the composite tax rates and estimated tax liability for a home with a market value of $100,000 in 2010 in each of the two school districts located within the City.

Figure 7-11 Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value, 2010

The City, County, library, and vocational tech tax rates are fixed rates that apply citywide. The school rates, however, vary by school district. Within the City of Dover, the Caesar Rodney School District has a lower tax rate than the Capital School District.

iv. Balance of State All taxable parcels in Kent County are valued as of the date of the last reassessment, which occurred on June 1, 1987. Kent County’s assessment

School District County Rate

School Rate

Cross ing Guard Rate

Vo‐Tech Rate


Assessment

Estimated Taxes per $100,000

Market Value

Appoquinimink 0.7018 1.4527 0.02278 0.1370 2.3143 2,314.30$

Brandywine 0.7018 1.8165 0.01656 0.1370 2.6719 2,671.90$

Chris tiana 0.7018 1.6620 0.01965 0.1370 2.5205 2,520.50$

Colonia l 0.7018 1.3960 0.01457 0.1370 2.2494 2,249.40$

Red Clay 0.7018 1.6870 0.01737 0.1370 2.5432 2,543.20$

Smyrna 0.7018 0.9970 0.00000 0.1026 1.8014 1,801.40$

Source: New Castle County Tax Office; Delaware Economic Development Office

School Distri ct County Rate

School Rate

City RateLibrary Rate

Vo‐Tech Rate

Total Tax Rate Per $100

Assessment


Caesar Rodney 0.310 1.1650 0.3378 0.0370 0.1304 1.9432 1,943.20$

Capi ta l 0.310 1.7685 0.3378 0.0370 0.1304 2.5467 2,546.70$

Source: Delaware Economic Development Office


July 2011 Page 527

ratio is 60%. Figure 7-12 details the composite tax rates and estimated tax liability for a home with an assessed value of $100,000 in 1987 in each of the incorporated areas in Kent County by school district.

Residents living in Cheswold, located in the Capital School District, pay the highest taxes in Kent County, followed by those living in Camden in the Caesar Rodney School District. The lowest tax rates can be found in Viola, which is part of the Lake Forest School District, and in Woodside, which is part of the Caesar Rodney School District.

Figure 7-12 Kent County Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value in

Incorporated Areas, 2010

School Distri ct / Loca l i ty

County Rate

School Rate


Vo‐Tech Rate

Total Tax Rate Per $100

Assessment


Market Value*

Camden 0.310 1.1650 1.2000 0.0370 0.1304 2.8424 1,023.26$

Dover 0.310 1.1650 0.3378 0.0000 0.1304 1.9432 699.55$

Magnol ia 0.310 1.1650 0.4000 0.0370 0.1304 2.0424 735.26$

Woods ide 0.310 1.1650 0.2000 0.0370 0.1304 1.8424 663.26$

Wyoming 0.310 1.1650 1.1000 0.0370 0.1304 2.7424 987.26$

Cheswold 0.310 1.7685 0.6000 0.0370 0.1304 2.8459 1,024.52$

Dover 0.310 1.7685 0.3378 0.0000 0.1304 2.5467 916.81$

Hartly 0.310 1.7685 0.0200 0.0370 0.1304 2.2659 815.72$

Leips ic 0.310 1.7685 0.4225 0.0370 0.1304 2.6684 960.62$

Li ttle Creek 0.310 1.7685 0.3500 0.0370 0.1304 2.5959 934.52$

Bowers Beach 0.310 1.1112 0.6000 0.0370 0.1304 2.1886 787.90$

Felton 0.310 1.1112 0.7100 0.0370 0.1304 2.2986 827.50$

Frederica 0.310 1.1112 0.6500 0.0370 0.1304 2.2386 805.90$

Harrington 0.310 1.1112 0.7100 0.0000 0.1304 2.2616 814.18$

Viola 0.310 1.1112 0.2000 0.0370 0.1304 1.7886 643.90$

Houston 0.310 1.3088 0.1200 0.0000 0.1304 1.8692 672.91$

Mil ford 0.310 1.3088 0.4600 0.0000 0.1304 2.2092 795.31$

Clayton 0.310 1.2529 0.6500 0.0370 0.1304 2.3803 856.91$

Kenton 0.310 1.2529 0.1200 0.0370 0.1304 1.8503 666.11$

Smyrna 0.310 1.2529 0.2526 0.0000 0.1304 1.9459 700.52$

Farmington 0.310 1.2090 0.5500 0.0370 0.1304 2.2364 805.10$

Woodbridge


*All taxable parcels in Kent County are valued as of the date of the last reassessment ( June 1, 1987). The taxable assessment is obtained by multiplying the 1987 market value by 60%. The ad valorem tax is calculated by multiplying the taxable assessment by the tax rate. In addition, certain localities may have other tax rate structures and more recent assesed values. Calculations on this chart are based on an overall assessment ratio of 60% for both the locality and County.

Caesar Rodney

Capi ta l

Lake Forest

Mil ford

Smyrna


July 2011 Page 528

Tax rates are lower in unincorporated areas of Kent County. Figure 7-13 details the tax rates by school district for all unincorporated areas of the County. Overall, the tax rates are lowest in the Lake Forest School District and highest in the Capital School District.

Figure 7-13 Kent County Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Market Value in

Unincorporated Areas, 2010

Sussex County taxes property at 50% of the 1974 appraised value. Figure 7-14 details the composite tax rates and estimated tax liability for a home with an appraised value of $100,000 in 1974 in each of the incorporated areas in Sussex County by school district.

Residents living in Georgetown, located in the Indian River School District, pay the highest taxes in Sussex County, followed by those living in Bridgeville in the Woodbridge School District. The lowest tax rates can be found in Ocean View, which is part of the Indian River School District.


School Rate

Library Rate

Vo‐Tech Rate


Assessment


Market Value*

Caesar Rodney 0.310 1.1650 0.0370 0.1304 1.6424 591.26$

Capita l 0.310 1.7685 0.0370 0.1304 2.2459 808.52$

Lake Forest 0.310 1.1112 0.0370 0.1304 1.5886 571.90$

Milford 0.310 1.3088 0.0370 0.1304 1.7862 643.03$

Smyrna 0.310 1.2529 0.0370 0.1304 1.7303 622.91$

Woodbridge 0.310 1.2090 0.0370 0.1304 1.6864 607.10$


*All taxable parcels in Kent County are valued as of the date of the last reassessment ( June 1, 1987). The taxable assessment is obtained by multiplying the 1987 market value by 60%. The ad valorem tax is calculated by multiplying the taxable assessment by the tax rate.


July 2011 Page 529

Figure 7-14 Sussex County Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Assessed Value in

Incorporated Areas, 2010

School Dis trict / Local i ty

County Rate

School Rate


Vo‐Tech Rate


Assessment


Appraised Value*

Dewey Beach 0.3983 2.5670 0.4000 0.0467 0.2666 3.6786 1,839.30$

Henlopen Acres 0.3983 2.5670 2.1700 0.0467 0.2666 5.4486 2,724.30$

Lewes 0.3983 2.5670 0.4900 0.0467 0.2666 3.7686 1,884.30$

Milton 0.3983 2.5670 0.1800 0.0467 0.2666 3.4586 1,729.30$

Rehoboth Beach 0.3983 2.5670 1.5500 0.0467 0.2666 4.8286 2,414.30$

Delmar 0.3983 3.1200 0.5000 0.0467 0.2666 4.3316 2,165.80$

Bethany Beach 0.3983 2.5700 0.1650 0.0467 0.2666 3.4466 1,723.30$

Dagsboro 0.3983 2.5700 0.3800 0.0467 0.2666 3.6616 1,830.80$

Fenwick Is land 0.3983 2.5700 1.9200 0.0467 0.2666 5.2016 2,600.80$

Frankford 0.3983 2.5700 2.5000 0.0467 0.2666 5.7816 2,890.80$

Georgetown 0.3983 2.5700 2.9300 0.0467 0.2666 6.2116 3,105.80$

Mil lsboro 0.3983 2.5700 0.5600 0.0467 0.2666 3.8416 1,920.80$

Mil lvi l le 0.3983 2.5700 0.5000 0.0467 0.2666 3.7816 1,890.80$

Ocean View 0.3983 2.5700 0.1144 0.0467 0.2666 3.3960 1,698.00$

Shelbyvi l le 0.3983 2.5700 1.8500 0.0467 0.2666 5.1316 2,565.80$

South Bethany 0.3983 2.5700 1.3000 0.0467 0.2666 4.5816 2,290.80$

Bethel 0.3983 2.4900 0.4000 0.0467 0.2666 3.6016 1,800.80$

Laurel 0.3983 2.4900 2.0800 0.0467 0.2666 5.2816 2,640.80$

El lendale 0.3983 3.6986 1.0000 0.0467 0.2666 5.4102 2,705.10$

Mil ford 0.3983 3.6986 0.4600 0.0467 0.2666 4.8702 2,435.10$

Slaughter Beach 0.3983 3.6986 0.7500 0.0467 0.2666 5.1602 2,580.10$

Blades 0.3983 3.2900 1.4000 0.0467 0.2666 5.4016 2,700.80$

Seaford 0.3983 3.2900 0.2900 0.0467 0.2666 4.2916 2,145.80$

Bridgevi l le 0.3983 3.2810 2.0000 0.0467 0.2666 5.9926 2,996.30$

Greenwood 0.3983 3.2810 1.8000 0.0467 0.2666 5.7926 2,896.30$

Woodbridge


*Sussex County taxes property at 50% o the 1974 appraised value. In addition, certain localities may have other tax rate structures and more recent assesed values. Calculations on this chart are based on an overall assessment ratio of 50% for both the locality and County.

Cape Henlopen

Delmar

Indian River

Laurel

Mil ford

Seaford


July 2011 Page 530

Figure 7-15 details the tax rates by school district for all unincorporated areas of Sussex County. Overall, the tax rates are lowest in the Laurel School District71 and the highest tax rates are in the Milford School District.

Figure 7-15 Sussex County Estimated Annual Real Estate Taxes per $100,000 Assessed Value in

Unincorporated Areas, 2010

The tax payments for properties in incorporated areas of Kent County are typically lower than in incorporated areas of Sussex County. In terms of annual tax payments, some areas in the Balance of State are more affordable than other areas, which may lead to lower homeownership rates among minority households in the more expensive localities. Overall, the tax rates in the Balance of State are fairly reasonable and affordable.

D. Public Transit Households without a vehicle, which in most cases are primarily low and moderate income households, are at a disadvantage in accessing jobs and services, particularly if public transit is inadequate or absent. Access to public transit is critical to these households. Without convenient access, employment is potentially at risk and the ability to remain housed is threatened. In 2000, there were 23,844 transit-dependent households in the State, comprising 8.1% of all households. Wilmington and Dover experienced the highest levels of transit dependency at 26.8% and 11.3%, respectively. In contrast, Sussex County and the Urban County of New Castle County had the lowest levels of transit dependency at 5.8% and 5.7%, respectively. Throughout Delaware, renters were far more likely to be transit-dependent than owners, as 18.7% of renter households did not have access to a vehicle, compared to 4% of owner households.72 71 Residents of the Laurel School District recently approved a tax referendum to help fund various renovations and improvements to area schools. Thus, tax rates are scheduled to go increase substantially over the next several years. The tax increase will not occur all at once. It will be phased in over a four year period, then decrease for the remaining life of the bonds. 72 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, (SF3, H44)


School Rate

Library Rate

Vo‐Tech Rate


Assessment

Estimated Taxes per $100,000 Appra ised Value*

Cape Henlopen 0.3983 2.5670 0.0467 0.2666 3.2786 1,639.30$

Delmar 0.3983 3.1200 0.0467 0.2666 3.8316 1,915.80$

Indian River 0.3983 2.5700 0.0467 0.2666 3.2816 1,640.80$

Laurel 0.3983 2.4900 0.0467 0.2666 3.2016 1,600.80$

Milford 0.3983 3.6986 0.0467 0.2666 4.4102 2,205.10$

Seaford 0.3983 3.2900 0.0467 0.2666 4.0016 2,000.80$

Woodbridge 0.3983 3.2810 0.0467 0.2666 3.9926 1,996.30$


*Sussex County taxes property at 50% o the 1974 appraised value.


July 2011 1

Among categories of race and ethnicity, White households were far less likely to be transit-dependent than Black and Hispanic households. Among White households, 5.6% were transit-dependent, compared to Black households who were over three times as likely to be transit dependent at 18.5%. Among Hispanic households, 12.3% did not have access to a vehicle. Figure 7-16 details transit-dependency by race and ethnicity for each of the entitlement communities throughout the State.

Figure 7-16 Percent of Transit-Dependent Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2000

Figure 7-17 provides information on the modes of transportation residents used to travel to work in 2009 throughout the State. The vast majority of residents (79.8%) drove alone while 3.1% used public transportation and 10.1% carpooled. Of those using public transportation, 80.2% rode the bus.

Figure 7-17 Modes of Transportation to Work, 2009

Total White Black Hispanic

State of Delaware 8.1% 5.6% 18.5% 12.3%

City of Wilmington 26.8% 18.2% 34.4% 25.2%

New Castle County* 5.7% 4.7% 10.5% 9.7%

City of Dover 11.3% 8.3% 17.1% 10.2%

Kent County** 6.7% 5.6% 12.8% 7.8%

Sussex County 5.8% 4.5% 14.5% 6.9%

*Excludes the City of Wilmington

**Excludes the City of Dover

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF3, (HCT33A, HCT33B, HCT33H)

Balance of State

# %

State of Delaware Total 405,927 100.0%

Car, truck or van 364,691 89.8%

Drove a lone 323,844 79.8%

Carpooled 40,847 10.1%

Publ ic Transportation 12,688 3.1%

Bus or trol ley bus 10,177 2.5%

Streetcar or trol ley car 50 0.0%

Subway or elevated 369 0.1%

Rai l road 2,054 0.5%

Ferryboat 38 0.0%

Taxicab 103 0.0%

Motorcycle 483 0.1%

Bicycle 1,510 0.4%

Walked 10,121 2.5%

Other Means 3,778 0.9%

Worked at Home 12,553 3.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2009 B08301


July 2011 Page 532

The use of public transportation to work differed across the various counties and entitlement communities throughout the State, reflecting diverse levels of transit-dependency in the region. For example, less than 1% of residents in both Kent and Sussex Counties used public transportation to get to work in 2009, compared to 13.3% of residents in the City of Wilmington.

Figure 7-18 Use of Public Transportation to Work by Community, 2009

According to advocates for persons with disabilities, the lack of 24-hour reliable transportation to and from jobs was identified as a significant barrier to fair housing choice throughout the State.

Public transportation in Delaware is managed by the Delaware Transit Corporation (DART). DART provides public transportation through four divisions: New Castle County, Kent County, Sussex County, and Inter-county services. Although most of its routes run in and around Wilmington and Newark in New Castle County, DART operates bus route networks in the Dover area of Kent County, two year-round bus routes which hub at Georgetown in Sussex County, one route which operates into Elkton, Maryland, with connection to the modified fixed-route and dial-a-ride services of Cecil County, Maryland, and six seasonal routes connecting Rehoboth Beach and other coastal resort towns in Sussex County, and with Ocean City, Maryland. Paratransit, statewide door-to-door bus service for the elderly and disabled is also available through DART.

In addition, Amtrak has two stations in Delaware along the Northeast Corridor, including the relatively quiet Newark Rail Station in the City of Newark and the busier Wilmington

% Drive% Public

Transportation

State of Delaware 89.8% 3.1%

City of Wilmington 76.4% 13.3%

New Castle County* 90.5% 3.1%

City of Dover 89.8% 2.3%

Kent County** 93.7% 0.9%

Sussex County 91.0% 0.7%

Balance of State

*Excludes the City of Wilmington

**Excludes the City of Dover

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2009 B08301

OBSERVATION: Lack of reliable 24‐hour transportation to and from work is a significant barrier to fair housing choice in the State of Delaware. Black, Hispanic, and renter households are most likely to be transit‐dependent. Among Black and Hispanic households, 18.5% and 12.3%, respectively, were transit‐dependent, compared to 5.6% of White households in 2000. Almost 19% of renter households did not have access to a vehicle, compared to 4% of owner households.


July 2011 Page 533

Rail Station in the City of Wilmington. The Northeast Corridor is also served by SEPTA's Wilmington/Newark Line of Regional Rail, which provides service to Claymont, Wilmington, Churchman’s Crossing, and Newark. The major freight railroad in Delaware is the Class 1 Norfolk Southern, which provides service to most of Delaware. It connects with two short line railroads, the Delaware Coast Line Railway and the Maryland & Delaware Railroad. These two short lines serve local customers in Sussex County. Another Class 1 railroad, CSX, passes through northern New Castle County parallel to the Amtrak Northeast Corridor.

i. Destinations and Routes New Castle County DART buses carry passengers across the County, with routes connecting Newark, Wilmington, and the Christiana Mall, along with other locations across the County. Shuttles to Philadelphia and New Jersey as well as Kent and Sussex Counties are also available. On Monday through Friday, buses run throughout the day, from about 7AM to 11PM. On weekends, buses run from 7AM until 8PM on Saturdays and from 10AM to 5PM on Sundays. The website also notes that Sunday service is “a pilot program that will be evaluated periodically to determine continuation of service.”

Dover buses carry passengers across Kent County, with routes connecting the Centre at Dover Shopping Center, Edgehill Shopping Center, Wesley College, the Dover Mall, Kent General Hospital, and the Dover Transit Center to other smaller business and residential areas. Buses run throughout the day on Monday through Friday, from about 6:30AM to 6PM. On Saturday, fewer routes run from 9:30AM until 6PM. There are no Sunday routes in the Dover area.

Buses carry passengers across Kent and Sussex Counties in the Balance of State, with routes connecting Laurel, Seaford, Bridgeville, Georgetown, Milton, Lewes, Milford, and Dover. Inter-County routes are also available. Routes run throughout the day on Monday through Friday, with some starting as early as 6AM and ending at 11PM. Saturday and Sunday service is not available in most areas of Sussex County. Kent County has limited availability on weekends.

Though these various schedules may be adequate for some commuters, workers of evening and midnight shift jobs will not be able to use the bus system for one of their commutes, which could limit housing choice for low-income households.

OBSERVATION: Transit‐dependent riders are restricted in their employment opportunities by the limited DART service. With service operating primarily between 7AM and 11PM on weekdays, persons who work the second and third shifts do not have public transportation available to them, ensuring uninterrupted employment. With an even more limited weekend service schedule, persons who are required to work weekend shifts and depend on public transit to get to and from work are at a severe disadvantage.


July 2011 Page 534

Map 7-2 on the following page compares the location of public housing units and other assisted private housing units to DART’s transit routes throughout the State. As shown in the map, many of the housing units are located adjacent to or within walking distance of DART transit bus routes.

ii. Accessibility DART’s New Freedom Program was created to improve the state’s transportation mobility options for disabled and elderly persons. After recognizing the need to provide transportation to those with mobility issues after a study of disability and unemployment, the New Freedom Program was initiated.

Individuals and groups with disabilities can apply for assistance through the program, which makes transportation possible through buses or shuttles, or other community programs, including carpooling, rideshare, and other services.

Map 7-2: Location of PublicHousing, Other Assisted Housing,and Public Transit Routes in the State of Delaware, 2010

Delaware Statewide Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!!

!!!

!

####

#

##

# #

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## ######

#

#

## ## #

####

##

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## ###

## ##### ##

###

#

########

#########

##

###

!!

Legend# Assisted Housing Sites!( Public Housing Sites

DART Transit RoutesDelaware Bay/ Atlantic OceanHispanic ConcentrationBlack ConcentrationCensus Tracts

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

#

#

###

##

###

## ##

#

#

#

#

#

####

###

#

## #

#

#

###

#

#

#

##

Salem

City of Wilmington

!

!

!!

#

# #####

#

#

#

#

##

##

####

#

#

#

City of Dover

!

!

!!!! !

!!

!!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##### ###

## ###

#

##

#

#######

#

###

#####

##

###

!!

Upper New Castle County


July 2011 Page 535

E. Newspaper Advertising Under federal law, the making, printing, and publishing of advertisements that state a preference, limitation, or discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin is prohibited. The prohibition applies to publishers, such as newspapers and directories. The prohibition also applies to persons and entities placing real estate advertisements.

Publishers and advertisers are responsible under federal law for making, printing, or publishing an advertisement that violates the Fair Housing Act in its face. Thus, they should not publish or cause to be published an advertisement that on its face expresses a preference, limitation, or discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. The law, as found in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, describes the use of words, photographs, symbols, or other approaches that are considered discriminatory.

For this AI, the real estate sections of the following newspapers were reviewed: The News Journal, the Dover Post, Delaware State News – the State Capital Daily, and the Cape Gazette.

i. Publisher’s Policies The publisher’s policy on accepting advertisements was prominently displayed and easy to read in the Sunday, November 28, 2010 edition of The News Journal. The policy cited the publisher’s intended compliance with federal and state fair housing laws and informed readers that the newspaper would not “knowingly accept any advertising for real estate which is in violation of the law.” HUD’s toll-free telephone number, including a separate phone number for the hearing impaired, was also provided to report potential discriminatory activities.

The printed edition of the Sunday, June 6, 2010 edition of the Delaware State News – The State Capital Daily did not state its policy on accepting advertisements for the newspaper. A subsequent review of the newspaper’s website revealed the newspaper’s policy, but it was difficult to find. The policy statement on the website, hosted by www.newszap.com, cited the publisher’s intended compliance with federal and state housing laws, and informed readers that the newspaper would not “knowingly accept advertising for illegal products or services or advertising that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, or disability.”

The Saturday July 10, 2010 printed edition of the Dover Post did not state its policy on accepting advertisements for the newspaper. In addition, the online version of the paper also did not provide information on the newspaper’s policy specific to federal fair housing laws.

The real estate section of the Cape Gazette for Friday, July 2, 2010 through Monday, July 5, 2010 was also reviewed as part of this analysis. The Cape Gazette covers Delaware’s Cape Region which includes Lewes, Rehoboth Beach, Milton, and Dewey. The printed edition did not state its policy on accepting advertisements for the newspaper. In addition, the online version


July 2011 Page 536

of the paper also did not provide information on the newspaper’s policy specific to federal fair housing laws. The majority of real estate firms featured throughout the real estate section of the Cape Gazette included the equal housing opportunity logo in their banner ads.

ii. Placement of Fair Housing Logo Placement of the fair housing logo was consistent throughout all of the newspapers reviewed, as the majority of real estate firms featured included the logo in their banner ads. Most, but not all, of the advertisers showed both the Equal Housing Opportunity logo and/or the Equal Housing Lending logo.

iii. Potentially Discriminatory Language in Advertisements Of the rental advertisements for apartments throughout the various newspapers reviewed, several ads stated “no pets” policies. In addition, other advertisements stated “small pets ok,” “no dogs,” or “pets negotiable.” For some persons with disabilities, service animals and therapeutic pets are necessary to achieve independent lives. Specifically, statements prohibiting or limiting pets discourage persons with disabilities that require service or therapeutic animals from applying for, or even inquiring about, these units. Discussions with the newspapers should be initiated with the recommendation that their policies be revised to include a statement to the effect of “All advertisements prohibiting or restricting pets shall be made with the understanding that such policies shall not apply to persons with disabilities, as defined by the Fair Housing Act, who require service or companion animals.”

F. Other Advertising The Rentals.com Metropolitan Philadelphia, Delaware, and South Jersey Apartments booklet, published by PRIMEDIA Inc., was also reviewed as part of this analysis. This rental apartment guide is a free publication that can be found at various grocery and convenience stores, colleges and universities, and other major employers throughout New Castle County.

The publisher’s policy on accepting advertisements was prominently displayed and easy to read. The policy stated the publisher’s intended compliance with federal and state fair housing laws and informed readers that the publisher would not “knowingly accept any advertising for real estate which is in violation of the law.”

OBSERVATION: The real estate sections in The News Journal, the Dover Post, Delaware State News – the State Capital Daily, and the Cape Gazette included prohibition of and/or restrictions on pets. For some persons with disabilities, service animals and therapeutic pets are necessary to achieve independent lives. Statements prohibiting or limiting pets discourage persons with disabilities that require service or therapeutic animals from applying for, or even inquiring about, these units.


July 2011 Page 537

Several rental apartment and townhome communities featured in the Rentals.com guide noted their pet policies on their individual advertisement pages, including phrases such as “pet friendly,” “feline friendly,” “small pets welcome,” and “large dogs welcome.” While the individual communities noted these preferences in their respective advertisements, the publisher’s policy states that “pet restrictions do not apply to pets assisting the handicapped.” The publisher’s pet policy is found in the Feature Finder section of the booklet which provides a matrix for readers to compare the various amenities offered by all rental communities featured in the brochure. It is delineated with an asterisk.

The Equal Housing Opportunity logo was prominently displayed on the majority of the communities’ rental advertisements featured within the brochure.

The Real Estate Book (Vol. 13, No.8 and Vol. 13, No.11), published by Network Communications Inc., for Kent County/Dover were also reviewed as part of this analysis. This guide to homeownership opportunities is a free publication that can be found at various grocery and convenience stores, department stores, and other area businesses and institutions.

The printed edition of the booklet did not state its policy on accepting advertisements. However, a later review of the online version, available at www.realestatebook.com, revealed the publisher’s policy. The policy statement on the website cited the publisher’s intended compliance with federal and state fair housing laws and informed readers that the publisher would not “knowingly accept any advertising for real estate which is in violation of the law.” HUD’s toll-free telephone number, including a separate phone number for the hearing impaired, was also provided to report potential discriminatory activities. Moreover, the Equal Housing Opportunity logo was prominently displayed on the majority of the real estate firms’ advertisements featured within the brochure.

In the 8th edition, one advertisement for a homeownership opportunity in Kent County was found to be potentially discriminatory. The advertisement stated the home had “his & hers closets.” Any phrase that notes a preference for married couples is unlawful. The rule of thumb when advertising residential real estate for rent or for sale is to describe the property, and not the people who may occupy it. The reference to “his & hers” may discourage single-parent households and gay/lesbian households from inquiring about the property.

The 11th edition of the booklet also had a potentially discriminatory advertisement. One advertisement for a homeownership opportunity in Kent County was found to be discriminatory. The advertisement read as follows: “If you have the Brady Bunch this 4BR/2.5BA home is for you.” Any phrase that notes a preference for married couples with children is unlawful. The rule of thumb when advertising residential real estate for rent or for sale is to describe the property, and not the people who may occupy it. The reference to the “Brady Bunch” may discourage single-parent households, unmarried households, married households without children, and elderly households from inquiring about the property.

Under federal law, the making, printing, and publishing of advertisements that state a preference, limitation, or discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin is prohibited. The prohibition applies to


July 2011 Page 538

publishers, such as newspapers and directories. The prohibition also applies to persons and entities placing real estate advertisements.

G. Real Estate Practices Information for this section of the AI was derived from interviews with representatives of the following organizations throughout the State of Delaware: the New Castle County Board of Realtors (NCCBOR), the Kent County Association of Realtors (KCAOR), and the Sussex County Association of Realtors (SCAOR).

Fair housing and ethics are core parts of the licensing and continuing education requirements for all Realtors licensed in Delaware. Agents and brokers are required to achieve 15 hours of continuing education every two years. Included in the 15 credits, each licensed salesperson must complete three mandatory credits in the required salesperson's core course plus an additional three mandatory credits in Legislative Update relating to both state and federal laws. The three local realtor boards all have members that are licensed through the State to teach various continuing education courses.

NCCBOR, KCAOR, and SCAOR all subscribe to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Code of Ethics. However, each individual organization has their own unique process for handling grievances and complaints filed against their respective members.

The following narrative provides additional information on the programs, activities, and initiatives of each of the local realtor associations.

i. New Castle County Board of Realtors (NCCBOR) NCCBOR offers a variety of continuing education classes including the “At Home with Diversity” elective. On average, anywhere from six to eight courses per year offered by NCCBOR contain fair housing components. In addition, two local realtors who are members of the Board are certified through the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to teach various continuing education courses.

Currently, NCCBOR has approximately 2,000 members. Diversity among its membership and leadership is a priority of the Board. One of the Board’s value statements listed in its 2009 Strategic Plan is to “respect the diversity that exists in our community” and to reflect it in its leadership and membership. NCCBOR believes the diversity of the region’s population and economy is a dynamic that should be upheld and strengthened. According to the Board, its membership and leadership is representative of the County’s overall population.

NCCBOR is currently pursuing various partnerships and proactive relationships with public agencies, private sector associations, and other stakeholders as an element of its outreach and advocacy efforts. Through such efforts, NCCBOR hopes to identify and pursue opportunities for strengthening the real estate market and coordinating advocacy strategies on behalf of its members. NCCBOR conducts outreach to help assess the needs of the community, including specific stakeholders, so that the Board can focus available resources on these needs in a collaborative process. NCCBOR envisions soliciting the support of NAR, through various grant


July 2011 Page 539

programs, to support such initiatives. Other resources available include the local Delaware Housing Opportunities Fund Inc., a nonprofit that NCCBOR initiated in the late 1990s and revitalized in the mid-2000s. Supporting local established external programs, such as Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware (HOND) and the Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council (DCRAC), as well as educating internal (Realtors/Brokers) and external clients (buyers/sellers) on financial health, rights, and obligations are all part of NCCBOR’s strategic action plan.

According to the Board, the listing agreements used locally do not have a feature that permits brokers to list accessible characteristics as a searchable field. However, the input sheet for the TREND Regional multi-list service (MLS) does have a setting to list accessible features such as ramps and doorways and these accessible features are searchable via the MLS system. Officials from NCCBOR are interested in doing more research and outreach in order to make any necessary changes to these systems so that they can be searchable for accessible features.

NCCBOR has an elaborate internal Grievance and Professional Standards process that relates to its Code of Ethics. Complaints concerning civil or fair housing violations are referred to the Delaware Real Estate Commission and/or the Delaware Human Rights Commission, accordingly. Once those investigations are concluded, NCCBOR then proceeds under its internal review process. NCCBOR also has an internal mediation and arbitration program. Over the past five years, there have been no referrals to either State Commission related to civil or fair housing complaints against NCCBOR or a member of NCCBOR.

ii. Kent County Association of Realtors (KCAOR) KCAOR offers several ongoing continuing education courses throughout the year. In addition, KCAOR has a variety of instructors available to teach courses related to fair housing. These instructors are approved by the Delaware State Real Estate Commission. In addition, the Association’s attorney offers a presentation on fair housing specific to Article 10 of the Code of Ethics and all new members are required to attend this presentation.

In 2010, the Association collaborated with NCALL Research Inc. to educate members of the Kent County community who were interested in purchasing a home. The program, funded through a grant from the National Association of Realtors (NAR), waived counseling fees and mortgage application fees associated with purchasing a home. As part of this program, NCALL and KCAOR co-sponsored several workshops throughout the County for potential homebuyers. Many of these homebuyers were members of the protected classes. After the workshop, individual attendees were paired with an NCALL counselor. The goal of the program was to educate residents on the home buying process. KCAOR and NCALL plan to offer the workshops and fee waivers again in 2011.

In response to the recent foreclosure crisis, much of KCAOR’s outreach and education efforts have focused on foreclosure education and prevention.


July 2011 Page 540

KCAOR offers an educational program for Kent County residents who are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure. This program has indirectly helped several members of the protected classes to remain in their homes and avoid being foreclosed upon by their mortgage lenders.

Currently, the Association has approximately 450 members, including both individual Realtors and brokerage firms. KCAOR does not offer pre-licensing courses at the present time and thus does not conduct any special outreach efforts to increase its membership. If interest in becoming a real estate agent would increase in the area, the Association would explore the possibility of providing pre-licensing courses. The Association reports that its membership is quite diverse and includes persons with disabilities, minorities, persons of all different age groups, and persons of various religious affiliations. While information is kept on file, KCAOR does not actively analyze the demographics of its members.

According to the Board, the listing agreements used locally do not have an area to list accessible characteristics. However, the input sheet for the multi-list service (MLS) does have a section to list accessible features such as ramps and doorways and these accessible features are searchable via the MLS system.

KCAOR subscribes to the NAR Code of Ethics. Article 10 of the Code of Ethics covers fair housing. According to the code, if a grievance is filed against an Association member concerning fair housing, the complaint is forwarded to the Delaware State Human Relations Commission and/or the Delaware State Real Estate Commission for review. According to the Association, there have been no referrals to either State Commission related to civil or fair housing complaints against KCAOR or a member of KCAOR over the past ten years or more.

iii. Sussex County Association of Realtors (SCAOR) There are two members of SCAOR who are trained to conduct the Legislative Update course and two elective courses titled Employer Assisted Housing and At Home with Diversity. These continuing education courses are offered throughout the County.

In response to the growth in the Hispanic population in Sussex County, SCAOR initiated a “Spanish for Realtors” program in 2006. This program was made possible through a grant from NAR’s Diversity Program. The course was approved for continuing education credits through the Delaware State Real Estate Commission and students were engaged for a minimum of 15 classroom hours. The class was quickly filled and so successful that it has been offered again and again. Subsequently, the students requested a next level and another class was created.

In 2006, SCAOR’s Diversity Committee expanded its initiatives and changed its name to the Housing Opportunities Partners (HOP) Committee. The Association works closely with County officials and assisted the County with the development its NSP and moderately priced housing programs. In the


July 2011 Page 541

spring of 2007, SCAOR fostered a working relationship with many nonprofit housing partners in Sussex County. As a result, a Community Outreach event was planned for elected officials and the general public.

A portion of the “Spanish for Realtors” Program includes an outsource component, which provides students with the chance to explore opportunities to network and develop a stronger understanding of local initiatives to address housing needs. The student and participant response was so strong that the desire to create an educational and informational “Out Reach” event was evident. Some of the goals of the “Out Reach” event were to:

• Enable Realtors to learn about new programs and initiatives in their community and throughout the County to assist in development and funding for housing

• Discuss regulatory barriers and awareness of issues that impact affordability and growth and development

• Unveil the new County ordinance for moderately priced housing • Review current programs and agencies for Realtors to develop

partnerships and reach new or emerging prospects • Invite consumers to a first time homebuyers evening

Many of the resources and brochures produced by SCAOR are available in both Spanish and English. In addition, SCAOR sponsors the “Sussex County Association of Realtors Go LOCAL” program. The Association developed the program to assist homebuyers in making their dream of home ownership a reality. The LOCAL in “Go LOCAL” stands for “Local Opportunity Creates Affordable Living.” Through this program, education and counseling is provided at no cost. The Association regularly hosts Go LOCAL events at their offices and at various sites throughout the County. For example, in the past the Association has partnered with area poultry plants to conduct educational outreach on housing issues as well as homeowner training for the plant’s employees. This program has helped respond to both the influx of Haitian residents in the western areas of the County near Seaford and Laurel and the increase of Hispanic residents over the past decade.

Another project of the HOP Committee is the “Talk Before You Walk Away” program. This program is in response to the recent foreclosure crisis that has occurred both nationwide and in Delaware. The program combines education and public awareness, with a focus on financial-literacy education programs for homeowners. In addition, local realtors received Realtor Survivor Tool Kits as part of the program. The kits were meant to help educate local Realtors so they, in turn, can educate and better advise their clients. SCAOR’s goal is to help 100 area families through financial counseling assistance.

The multi-list service used by SCAOR, which differs from the TREND Regional MLS, does not use a specific term for labeling units as accessible for persons with disabilities. However, SCAOR has developed coded features upon which a search for property is conducted. Each section of


July 2011 Page 542

coded features has appropriate descriptions such as wide doorways, handicapped parking, ramps, etc. According to representatives from the Association, all agents are familiar with the coded features application, as it is very thorough and easy to use.

If a grievance is filed against an Association member, the complaint is presented to the Grievance Committee, whose membership will meet to review and discuss it. If warranted, a hearing will be held. SCAOR only handles violations of the Code of Ethics. The Association currently subscribes to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Code of Ethics. All fair housing complaints are forwarded to the State of Delaware Real Estate Commission. The Fair Housing Committee of the Commission then handles the review and procedure process for any complaints filed.

H. Evaluation of Current Fair Housing Profile This section provides a review of fair housing complaints or compliance reviews where a charge of a finding of discrimination has been made. Additionally, this section will review the existence of any fair housing discrimination suits filed by the United States Department of Justice or private plaintiffs in addition to the identification of other fair housing concerns or problems.

i. HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) A lack of filed complaints does not necessarily indicate a lack of housing discrimination. Some persons may not file complaints because they are not aware of how to go about filing a complaint or where to go to file a complaint. In a tight rental market, tenants avoid confrontations with prospective landlords. Discriminatory practices can be subtle and may not be detected by someone who does not have the benefit of comparing his treatment with that of another home seeker. Other times, persons may be aware that they are being discriminated against, but they may not be aware that the discrimination is against the law and that there are legal remedies to address the discrimination. Finally, households may be more interested in achieving their first priority of finding decent housing and may prefer to avoid going through the process of filing a complaint and following through with it. Therefore, education, information, and referral regarding fair housing issues remain critical to equip persons with the ability to reduce impediments.

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) at HUD receives complaints from persons regarding alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act. Between January 2000 and August 2010, 327 cases were filed through HUD for the entire State of Delaware. About one-third of the cases were from the Cities of Wilmington and Dover.

Disability was the most commonly alleged basis of discrimination (139 complaints), followed by race (118 complaints). Together, race and disability accounted for 78.6% of all complaints. Several complaints alleged more than one basis for discrimination.


July 2011 Page 543

Figure 7-19 Bases for Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD, 2000-2010

Of the 341 cases in the State, 108 (33%) were successfully conciliated and 111 (32.7%) were found to be without probable cause and closed. An additional 84 cases (25.7%) were withdrawn by the complainant. Three cases (1%) were settled by a judicial consent order, which often results in a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA), and two were dismissed. Three cases were closed after discrimination was found. Of these cases, all three alleged discrimination on the basis of race.

Figure 7-20

Resolution of Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD, 2000-2010

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Color

Retaliation

Harrasment

Religion

Sex

National Origin

Familial Status

Race

Disability

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

FHAP or DOJ Dismissed

Discrimination Found

Other

FHAP Judicial Consent Order

Uncooperative complainant

Withdrawn by Complainant

No Cause

Conciliated


July 2011 Page 544

As of August 2009, eight cases were still pending. In three cases, probable cause was found and the cases are pending litigation. Two cases alleged discrimination on the basis of familial status and one on the basis of disability. Five additional cases are still pending investigation to determine if there is probable cause.

ii. Delaware Community Legal Aid Society, Inc (CLASI) Delaware’s Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI) also receives complaints from persons regarding alleged violations of the federal Fair Housing Act and Delaware’s Fair Housing Act. CLASI also conducts testing to determine the presence of discrimination in the housing market.

Between January 2009 and September 2010, CLASI received 179 complaints alleging discrimination. Disability was the most commonly alleged basis of discrimination (145 complaints), followed by gender. Several complaints alleged more than one basis for discrimination.

Figure 7-21 Bases for Fair Housing Complaints Received by CLASI, 2009-2010

A total of 77 cases were settled through CLASI between 2009 and 2010, or 43% of all cases filed. Of these, 61 involved cases alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

In addition to complaint data, CLASI also tracks the results of matched-pair testing in its enforcement logs. From January 2009 to September 30, 2010,

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Religion

Sexual Orientation

Age

Familial Status

National Origin

Race

Sex

Disability

OBSERVATION: The majority of complaints filed with the HUD FHEO office and CLASI alleged discrimination based on disability or gender. Of the complaints filed with CLASI between January 2009 and October 2010, over 78% alleged discrimination based on disability while 10.2% alleged discrimination based on gender. For complaints filed with the HUD FHEO office between January 2000 and August 2010, disability and race accounted for 42.6% and 36.1%, respectively, of the alleged bases for discrimination.


July 2011 Page 545

157 matched-pair tests were conducted. These tests included 35 (22.3%) tests of housing providers in the rental context, 69 (44%) tests of home owner’s insurance providers, 25 (16%) tests of Realtors in the sales context to target racial steering, 10 (6.4%) mortgage tests, and 18 (11.5%) interior and exterior accessibility tests for potential violations of the design and construction provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

I. Assessment of Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities

i. Statewide Fair Housing Programs and Activities a. Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware (HOND)

Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware (HOND) was founded in 1981 as a fair housing advocacy group. HOND offers education and housing counseling programs, including a monthly workshop for first time home buyers and one-on-one comprehensive home ownership and credit counseling services. HOND also conducts matched pair testing in the real estate and insurance markets. HOND works primarily in New Castle County and the City of Wilmington, but offers services throughout the State.

b. Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council (DCRAC) Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council (DCRAC) was founded in 1987 in response to the disparities of mortgage denial rates between Blacks and Whites. Its mission is to ensure equitable treatment and equal access to credit and capital for underserved populations throughout Delaware. DCRAC offers a variety of services, including three clinics for counseling in the areas of housing, credit, and taxes; advocacy campaigns to lending institutions to support the Community Reinvestment Act; and the Financial Fitness and Money Matters educational series. DCRAC receives funding through HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) to assist people who believe they have been victims of housing discrimination. DCRAC typically uses its FHIP grant to coordinate symposia on fair housing and fair lending and to participate in foreclosure prevention activities. The Council also educates the public on foreclosure prevention strategies, accepts and refers viable complaints of discrimination, and reaches out to individuals in underserved areas.

c. Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI) Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI) works statewide to provide free civil legal services to lower income persons, persons with disabilities, and the elderly. With regards to housing, CLASI offers a foreclosure mediation program. Additionally, CLASI has been funded by the state to conduct matched pair testing and assists residents in understanding their legal rights, in particular landlord-tenant relations. CLASI also receives funding through HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) to reduce housing discrimination in the State of Delaware through increased enforcement efforts. Project activities


July 2011 Page 546

include working with agencies, advocacy, and grassroots groups to address the fair housing challenges of non‐English speaking immigrants, persons with disabilities, minorities, and families with children. The organization also conducts fair housing tests and collaborates with the University of Delaware’s Center for Community Research and Service to analyze testing data and information concerning possible steering by Delaware real estate brokers.

d. Delaware Housing Coalition (DHC) Delaware Housing Coalition (DHC) was founded in 1983 with the mission to advocate for safe, decent, and affordable housing throughout Delaware. DHC conducts research and advocates for expanding fair and affordable housing choice. DHC’s annual reports include studies on the affordability gap in the State and a report entitled “The Realities of Poverty in Delaware.” DHC also compiles and distributes a brochure titled “Housing in a Hurry: A Guide to Finding Room in Delaware,” which lists service providers of temporary and affordable housing in Delaware’s three counties. 1) Summary of the Fair Share Housing Measure in Delaware The Delaware Housing Coalition published a report in the fall of 2010 that encourages a more equitable geographic distribution of affordable rental housing across the entire state. Research for this report was conducted by students and staff at the University of Delaware. Because this report touches on the geography of opportunity, the research is being summarized in the AI. The fair share measurement is derived from an analysis of the housing needs of renter households. For the purposes of this analysis, the “population in need” consists of cost-burdened, extremely low income renter households (i.e., household incomes of less than 30% of MHI paying more than 30% of their income towards rent) and very low income renter households (i.e., household incomes between 30% and 50% of MHI) that are severely rent burdened (i.e., paying more than 50% of their incomes toward rent. The research shows that there are over 14,000 households in Delaware that fall into this classification. When the total supply of affordable housing in Delaware is taken into consideration, there are still over 9,000 rental units needed to accommodate the “population in need.” The Fair Share Housing Measure defines the geographic locations where affordable rental housing should be provided. This procedure considers the location of the “population in need” and the location of existing affordable units of rental housing. A “fair share deficit” means that the “population in need” exceeds the supply of affordable rental housing. The number of additional affordable rental housing units needed was then mapped by census tract. The fair share surplus/deficit map reveals that there are very few census tracts in the state that have a positive fair share.


July 2011 Page 547

Taking the analysis one step further, the authors wisely realize that the geographic location of new affordable rental housing units should not simply be based on the fair share surplus or deficit, but should also consider the socioeconomic characteristics of the census tract. Placing new affordable rental units in impoverished neighborhoods would be a disservice to both the “population in need” and the neighborhood. On the other hand, placing new affordable rental housing in areas of opportunity “would give households greater choice and opportunities while benefitting communities as a whole.” Therefore, the report establishes targeted census tracts for the development of affordable rental housing that reflect a fair share deficit and where the median household income is greater than $40,000, the poverty rate is less than 15% and the percentage of rental housing is less than 30%. The targeted “Fair Share” census tracts are depicted on the following map:

Source: Fall 2010 Edition of the Housing Journal, published by the Delaware Housing Coalition


July 2011 Page 548

The report goes on to identify policy issues that inhibit a more equitable geographic distribution of affordable rental housing in the state, including the following:

• There is a need to strategically re-zone land for multi-family housing in growth areas

• There is an uninformed bias against density which contributes to sprawl and acts to drive up the cost of housing

• New Castle County housing programs do not promote the development of new affordable rental housing

• State housing programs do not address the most significant housing needs, such as those in Sussex County

• New public infrastructure is often planned largely with single-family housing and commercial development in mind

• New multi-family housing should be expected of communities that benefit from public investment in infrastructure, such as in the southern New Castle County sewer district

• There is little cooperation and planning between local jurisdictions when it comes to fair share housing, such as in the case of New Castle County and the City of Wilmington

• Tax credit housing is targeted to Qualified Census Tracts which encourages the placement of affordable rental housing in areas of concentrated poverty

• The project selection criteria under the State’s Housing Development Fund (HDF) does not adequately reflect the need for a broader geographic distribution of affordable rental housing

• There is a need for preservation and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing in census tracts outside of identified growth zones, including resident-owned communities for manufactured housing

• There is a general absence of policies that lead to mixed-income developments that feature a variety of housing types

Delaware’s Fair Share Housing Measure is an important research document that has the potential to contribute to a statewide discussion of the geography of opportunity. Targeted census tracts

OBSERVATION: From a fair housing perspective, one suggestion for improving upon the definition of targeted “Fair Share” census tracts would be to exclude any census tract as a target area that is defined by Delaware’s various entitlement entities as an impacted area and/or defined as an area of racial, ethnic, and/or LMI concentration in the AI. This information should then be shared with public policy makers throughout the State, including the planning and zoning offices of all three counties and their incorporated areas that administer land use regulations.


July 2011 Page 549

could be redefined to include non-impacted areas that offer lower skill employment opportunities, quality public schools, and low crime rates. Public policy should be aimed at encouraging the development of affordable rental housing for families in these areas.

ii. State Office of Human Relations (OHR) The mission of the State’s Office of Human Relations (OHR) is to ensure equal opportunity for all residents of Delaware by protecting against practices that discriminate based on race, color, age, religion, familial status, national origin, or disability. In addition, OHR seeks to promote amicable relationships among the various racial, ethnic, religious, gender, age, social, and cultural groups throughout the State. Another one of OHR’s goals is to educate the community at-large regarding discrimination of all types, including sexual orientation and economic status. To achieve its mission and goals, the Office of Human Relations performs the following functions:

• Investigates, negotiates, and settles housing and public accommodation discrimination complaints,

• Provides clerical, administrative, and fiscal support to the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC) and assists in monitoring the State’s Affirmative Action Plan,

• Conducts educational seminars on discrimination, fair housing, public accommodations, and hate issues, and;

• Receives, investigates, and mediates/conciliates incidents of discrimination, bias, and disparate treatment as it relates to schools, prisons, neighborhood tension, hate crime, and police conflict.

OHR is a HUD-licensed Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) that participates in various neighborhood, civic, religious, and community events to disseminate information to citizens and to educate residents of Delaware about fair housing and equal accommodation issues. In addition, OHR offers training in the following areas: diversity, fair housing, and public accommodation.

Currently, OHR has a staff of seven members, including 3 full-time investigators. OHR has offices throughout the State, including locations in Wilmington, Dover, and Georgetown. Staff members are currently working on a strategic plan for the agency, which will include bi-lingual elements to address the needs and provide increased access to services of the State’s LEP population.


July 2011 Page 550

During interviews with OHR staff members, several general fair housing issues were discussed, including the following:

• Many undocumented immigrants have a fear of being caught so they tend not to file complaints, although this makes them more vulnerable to discrimination,

• Due to their lower incomes, many lower income households are afraid of losing their home or apartments and therefore do not submit complaints,

• Tenants in overcrowded units often do not submit complaints due to fear of eviction,

• Due to lack of price controls and leases, there is little protection for tenants of mobile home parks,

• Mobile home park owners are in need of fair housing training and education,

• Numerous complaints have been brought against area homeowners’ associations, which are in need of fair housing education and training, and;

• Fear of retaliation deters renters from filing a complaint because they do not want to be evicted and end up homeless.

Many OHR staff persons feel as if defendants in complaint cases are not truly learning from their mistakes. Currently, HUD favors conciliation to resolve complaints over a case ending up in court and resulting in eviction and possibly homelessness. Typically, however, it is the defendant’s and/or plaintiff’s call on whether a case is conciliated or goes to court. Due to the time and effort involved in the conciliation of complaints, many of OHR’s cases last for over 100 days.

In certain instances, the complainant can opt to withdraw the complaint and agree to specified conditions proposed by the defendant. For example, if the defendant promises to let the complainant remain in his/her unit, he/she may likely agree to the conditions because he/she does not want to lose his/her housing unit. If a case ends in this type of arrangement, OHR cannot require any type of follow-up or monitoring. With conciliation, OHR can require that the defendant get fair housing training, provide DHRC with follow-up reports, etc.

OBSERVATION: The Delaware State Office of Human Relations (OHR) and the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC) should conduct the four‐factor analysis to determine the extent to which the translation of vital documents is necessary to assist persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) in accessing various statewide programs and services. If it is determined that the need for a LAP exists, OHR/DHRC must prepare the LAP in order to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


July 2011 Page 551

OHR, and more specifically DHRC, has the authority to initiate complaints. While this does not happen often, if DHRC were to initiate a complaint, then there is no threat of eviction and the case could end up in court.

iii. Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC) The Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC), established in 1953, is responsible for carrying out public information and education programs, for preparing reports and recommendations, and for making surveys and studies necessary for the performance of its duties as outlined in Title 31, Chapter 30 of the Delaware State Code.

DHRC’s primary powers and duties are as follows:

• To act as conciliator in matters involving race, age, marital status, color, sex, disability, creed, national origin or ancestry,

• To make such investigations, surveys, and studies as are pertinent to the performance of its duties, and;

• To make recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly concerning any necessary legislation.

There are a total of 28 Commission members. Each County is represented by seven members and 7 members are selected at-large, regardless of their County of residency. The members are appointed by the Governor. Title 31, Chapter 30 of the Delaware State Code specifically states that DHRC’s membership “shall be broadly representative of various racial and cultural groups of the State.”

OBSERVATION: There is a continuing need for quality fair housing education, outreach, and training for area landlords and property management companies and for residents of the State.

OBSERVATION: The Office of Human Relations (OHR), and more specifically the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC), should publicize its settlements to deter landlords from abusing the current system and to encourage persons to file fair housing complaints.

OBSERVATION: The Office of Human Relations (OHR), and more specifically the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC), has the authority to initiate complaints but rarely utilizes this authority. The Office of Human Relations (OHR), and more specifically the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC), should be more aggressive in initiating complaints. Potential benefits from this scenario include the removal of any fears of retaliation for the tenant and increased education and awareness among landlords and property owners.


July 2011 Page 552

iv. Statewide Fair Housing Training Seminars Many counties and municipalities throughout Delaware, including the City of Wilmington, the City of Dover, and New Castle County, have some type of rental property registration, licensing, and/or inspection program. These programs provide local entities with a method to more efficiently monitor the ownership and condition of rental properties that may be dilapidated and in need of repair, are eyesores in the community, or are otherwise problem properties.

While these communities should be commended in their efforts to more closely monitor and inspect their rental housing stock, none of the programs analyzed as part of this AI encouraged landlords or property management companies to attend fair housing trainings. Thus, all property registration programs should include a calendar of fair housing training seminars to be provided in each county. These calendars should be updated regularly, supplied at the time of registration, and posted on the various jurisdictions’ respective websites.

The need for fair housing education throughout the state extends beyond landlords and property management companies. For example, licensed real estate agents, elected officials, planning staff, code enforcement staff, zoning staff, and members of appointed boards and commissions could all benefit greatly from attending an annual fair housing seminar. These trainings should be scheduled at no cost and be marketed to the local realtor associations, county and municipal staff, elected officials, and members of appointed boards and commissions that deal with housing, zoning, and community development issues.

Jurisdictions throughout the state can and should work collaboratively to facilitate, coordinate, and market these training seminars on an ongoing basis. Moreover, jurisdictions can and should work closely with agencies including, but not limited to, the Delaware Division of Human Relations, which already offers free training sessions.

OBSERVATION: The need for fair housing education and training extends beyond area landlords and property management companies. Elected officials, appointed board and commission members, real estate agents, and government staff dealing with zoning, code enforcement, housing, and community development programs should also be encouraged to attend annual fair housing trainings.

OBSERVATION: Localities throughout the State of Delaware that have rental property registration, licensing, and/or inspection programs should encourage landlords and property management companies to attend fair housing training by providing a calendar of seminars to be provided in each county. This calendar should be updated regularly, provided at time of initial registration, and posted on various jurisdictional websites.


July 2011 Page 553

J. General Fair Housing Observations This section includes a summary of general observations included in the Regional Data Profile and Regional Considerations sections of the AI. General observations and findings include the results of primary and secondary research that define the underlying conditions, trends, and context for fair housing planning in the State of Delaware. These observations in and of themselves do not necessarily constitute impediments to fair housing choice. Rather, they establish a contextual framework for the impediments to fair housing choice that are presented in the following section.

1. Minorities have continued to increase as a percentage of total population. Minorities have increased from 19.6% to 28.4% of Delaware’s population since 1990. The fastest growing segments include Asian/Pacific Islanders and persons of all other races.

An increasingly diverse population in Delaware, and in New Castle County in particular, demonstrates the need for communities to perform HUD’s four-factor analysis to determine the degree to which the translation of vital documents and interpretation of services are warranted.

2. There are 60 census tracts in the State of Delaware that meet the criterion for an area of minority concentration, also known as impacted areas. There are a total of 60 areas of minority concentration in Delaware, of which 47 are areas of Black residents. Concentration of Hispanic residents account for 15 areas. Two census tracts, both in New Castle County, are areas of concentration of both Black and Hispanic residents.

3. Degrees of segregation vary by locality throughout the State, as determined by dissimilarity indexing. Most areas in the State, as a whole, are characterized by moderate or low levels of segregation. However, Wilmington is highly segregated, according to dissimilarity indices. On the other hand, Sussex County is the most integrated.

4. Members of the protected classes have significantly lower incomes.

Median household income among Blacks was substantially lower than Whites in 2008. The MHI of Black households was almost $20,000 less than that of Whites. In addition, Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to live in poverty. Consequently, Blacks and Hispanics will have greater difficulty finding affordable rental units or homes to purchase.

Persons with disabilities were much more likely to live in poverty than persons without a disability. Among persons with a disability, 17.1% were living in poverty in 2009 compared to 9% of persons without a disability.

Female-headed households with children accounted for almost 30% of all families living in poverty in 2008. Consequently, securing affordable housing will be especially difficult for this segment of the population.

Families with at least one foreign-born parent were more likely to have incomes of less than 200% of the poverty level. In 2008, 41.6% of families


July 2011 Page 554

with one or more foreign-born parents were living at this income level, compared to 30.7% of families with only native-born parents.

5. Many areas identified as impacted areas of racial or ethnic concentration are also areas of concentration of low and moderate income persons. In Delaware, 40% of the population is comprised of low and moderate income (LMI) persons. The percentage of LMI persons across the State varies by locality, ranging from 37.5% in New Castle County to almost 59% in the City of Wilmington.

6. Minority households were more likely to be unemployed than Whites in 2008. Blacks were more likely to be unemployed and had the highest unemployment rate in 2008 at 11.2%, compared to 5.2% among Whites and 4.3% among Asians. Hispanics also had a relatively high unemployment rate at 8.3%. Higher unemployment, whether temporary or permanent, will mean less disposable income for housing expenses.

7. The State gained over 110,000 housing units from 1990 to 2010, with most of this growth occurring in Sussex County and the Urban County of New Castle County. The State’s overall housing inventory has increased 38.2% (more than 110,000 units) since 1990. Over half of this growth was in the Balance of State, primarily Sussex County. The Urban County of New Castle County also experienced a significant increase in housing units during this period. By comparison, growth in the housing stock was slowest in the City of Wilmington.

8. Blacks and Hispanics are far less likely to become home owners than Whites. Lower household incomes among Blacks and Hispanics are reflected in similarly low home ownership rates when compared to Whites.

Real median household income has not kept pace with median gross rent and median housing value in the State of Delaware. Median housing value surged 45% between 1990 and 2008 compared to an increase of 6.8% in median gross rent and a decrease of 4.2% in median household income. This trend will greatly impact the affordability of housing for lower income households.

9. The affordable housing market is much tighter for members of the protected classes.

Minority households were more likely to live in larger families than White households. For example, over 80% of Hispanic families had three or more persons, compared to 54.5% of White families. However, only 27.7% of the rental housing stock in the State contained three or more bedrooms compared to 82.3% of the owner housing stock.

The State of Delaware lost almost half of its affordable rental housing inventory, falling from 19,979 units in 2000 to 10,519 in 2008. By


July 2011 Page 555

comparison, units renting for $1,000 or more increased more than fourfold from 7,237 to 32,387.

Minimum wage and single-income households cannot afford a housing unit renting for the HUD Fair Market Rent in Delaware. This situation forces these individuals and households to double-up with others, or lease inexpensive, substandard units from unscrupulous landlords. Minorities and female-headed households will be disproportionately impacted because of their lower incomes.

Persons receiving a monthly SSI check of $674 as their sole source of income, including persons with disabilities, cannot afford a one-bedroom unit renting at the Fair Market Rate of $856.

10. While foreclosure rates varied by locality, the overall foreclosure rate in Delaware is low at 3%. Between January 2007 and June 2008, Delaware had an overall foreclosure rate of 3%. The City of Wilmington had the highest foreclosure rate in the State at 5.2%, following by Dover at 3.6%. Sussex County experienced the lowest rate of foreclosures at 2.2%.

11. Several statewide policies that promote homeownership provide valuable resources to low and moderate income homebuyers, many of whom are members of the protected classes, and should be continued. The Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (SFMRB) Program is a valuable resource for households throughout the State that are interested in purchasing a home. Since 2008, the program has assisted almost 1,300 households to achieve their dream of homeownership. SFMRB program participants represent a wide range of households, including several members of the protected classes, such as Black and Hispanic households and single-parent households. DSHA should continue to reach out to members of the protected classes through the SFMRB program to help them achieve their dream of owning a home and building wealth.

The Live Near Your Work (LNYW) Program is a valuable tool for area employers, employees, and local jurisdictions. The program provides incentives, in the form of a down payment and/or closing cost assistance, to potential homebuyers who are employed through participating employers. DSHA should continue to offer this program as a way to expand housing choice and to provide homeownership opportunities to income-eligible households. DSHA should also continue to recruit additional employers, lenders, and local jurisdictions to participate in the program.

12. Delaware’s 2010 Update to the “Strategies for State Policies and Spending” document provides a collaborative framework to guide the investment of funds throughout the State that promotes housing choice. The 2010 Update to the Strategies for State Policies and Spending provides a collaborative framework to guide the investment of funds throughout the State that promotes housing choice. Specifically, the 2010 Update identifies


July 2011 Page 556

areas that should be targeted for development, redevelopment, conservation, open space, and/or preservation. Housing growth, in terms of new construction, is focused in Level 1 and 2 areas, which include a mix of both impacted and non-impacted communities. Whenever possible, state, county, and local government entities should allocate funds towards the construction of new, affordable multi-family housing units in non-impacted areas in order to affirmatively further fair housing and promote greater housing choice.

K. Potential Regional Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Recommendations

Based on the observations included in this report, the following potential impediments to fair housing choice in the State of Delaware were identified. Recommended actions to eliminate these impediments are also provided.

i. Public Sector a. The State’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and related policies

should be revised to reflect Delaware’s commitment to affirmatively further fair housing. DSHA’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and other related policies (i.e. general fair housing policies, policies related to the Housing Development Fund (HDF), etc.) were reviewed and analyzed as part of this AI. The following observations were noted:

• Delaware’s HDF policies already recognize the importance of expanding the supply of affordable housing outside of areas of racial and ethnic concentration. DSHA’s definition of impaction includes areas with a higher than average number of renter households and where there is already an adequate supply of subsidized rental housing. However, DSHA’s definition of impaction does not consider racial, ethnic, or LMI concentrations. Both the QAP and HDF development standards should provide a definition of impacted areas that is consistent with the AI and DSHA’s Five Year Consolidated Plan.

• Scoring category 21 of the QAP provides one point for projects located in QCTs and DDAs. DSHA is in the unenviable position of being required to comply with two contradictory federal statutes. On one hand, the federal Housing and Community Development Act and related statutes require DSHA to affirmatively further fair housing choice by expanding the supply of affordable rental housing in non-impacted neighborhoods. On the other hand, Section 42 of the federal Internal Revenue Code requires DSHA to incentivize tax credit projects in QCTs, many of which are located in impacted and concentrated areas. This provision of Section 42 is an impediment to fair housing choice. It is beyond the purview of DSHA to overcome this federal impediment. Furthermore, DSHA must comply with both statutes in order to insure continued tax credit authority under


July 2011 Page 557

Section 42 and in order to insure continued CDBG and HOME funding under the Housing and Community Development Act. By granting only one point to projects located in a QCT or DDA, DSHA is providing the least amount of incentive possible in order to maintain compliance with Section 42.

• DSHA may award a 30% boost in eligible basis for high-ranking projects where additional resources are needed to render the project financially feasible and where the development is not located in a Qualified Census Tract (QCT) or Difficult to Develop Area (DDA). This important provision in the QAP allows DSHA to give special consideration to projects of special merit, including those that expand fair housing choice in non-impacted, non-concentrated areas of the State.

• Section 42(m)(1)(A)(ii), SB 400, and QAP scoring category #8 of the QAP require that local elected officials be informed of a developer’s intent to develop tax credit housing. In addition, scoring category #22 provides additional points to a developer that sponsors and holds a public meeting to present their application. Collectively, these requirements increase the likelihood that the proposed project will be resisted by NIMBYists or through political intervention. There exists no such public notification requirement for conventional or market rate housing in Delaware. Therefore, the method of financing a residential development project is the key factor in determining whether public notification is required. If a tax credit developer chooses not to pursue the award of points under scoring category #8, he/she is at a competitive disadvantage. In reaction to these policies, most developers will follow the path of least resistance by developing properties in jurisdictions where they will be met with the least public resistance rather than in locations that offer an opportunity to expand fair housing choice or otherwise address a critical need for affordable housing. These public policies (i.e., Section 42, SB 400, and scoring categories #8 and #22 of the QAP) are discriminatory. The local land use approval process should be the sole factor in determining the need for public notification. Tax credit housing should not be subjected to a higher standard of public notification than conventionally financed market rate housing. Notification policies and incentives that encourage public notification limit fair housing choice.

• The QAP requires only minimal information from the applicant relative to the fair housing acumen of management staff.

• DSHA should continue to provide funding to allow site managers to attend DE NAHRO’s annual fair housing training session. To further demonstrate its commitment to affirmatively further fair housing, DSHA should begin to co-sponsor this event, or a


July 2011 Page 558

similar event, in partnership with DE NAHRO and other applicable state agencies such as the Office of Human Relations.

• While DSHA does provide financial support for fair housing trainings, it does not have an agency-wide policy that encourages housing managers to participate in fair housing trainings. DSHA could benefit from a single management agent policy relative to fair housing that is articulated with consistency throughout the QAP, in its HDF guidelines, and in the broader umbrella of requirements that apply to all developments financed by DSHA.

• Ninety percent (90%) of all tax credit projects in Delaware involve HDF as a source of funds. HDF Project and Neighborhood Standards require that each HDF-assisted project:

o Comply with state and federal fair housing statutes, o Promote fair housing choice, and o Prohibit undue concentration of affordable housing in lower

income areas. • HDF guidelines provide a definition of impacted census

tracts/areas of concentration. However, this definition should be revised to provide a more concise definition of what is meant by the phrase “areas of racial, ethnic and LMI concentration,” along with a listing of census tracts in Delaware that meet this definition. The HDF definition should be consistent with the definition of impacted areas in DSHA’s Consolidated Plan and the AI.

Proposed Action I: For purposes of QAP scoring category 17(B), DSHA should redefine impacted areas to include census tracts located in areas of racial, ethnic, and/or LMI concentrations. Proposed Action II: Send letters to members of Delaware’s federal legislative delegation advising them of the statutory contradiction between Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and related statutes as it relates to affirmatively furthering fair housing. In the letter, reference should be made to The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (N.D. Tex. 2010). DSHA should state its desire to avoid being the target of similar litigation in Delaware. A copy of the letter should be sent to Secretary Donovan at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The purpose of these measures is to document DSHA’s efforts to overcome statutory and regulatory barriers to fair housing choice. Proposed Action III: Amend the QAP to identify the specific census tracts in Delaware that are impacted (using DSHA’s definition) and racially, ethnically and/or LMI concentrated (using the definition in the AI). Actively encourage tax credit developers to undertake projects in


July 2011 Page 559

communities of opportunity, i.e. census tracts outside of areas of racial, ethnic, and LMI concentration. Proposed Action IV: Eliminate QAP scoring category #8. Under scoring category #8, a project that notifies area elected officials (Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and civic groups located within one quarter mile of the proposed development) can earn up to three points in the tax credit competition. This DSHA policy is a barrier to fair housing choice because it increases the likelihood that the proposed project will be resisted by NIMBYists or through political intervention. The fair housing rule of thumb is that an affordable housing project should not be subjected to a higher standard of public notification than market rate housing. To do so is discriminatory. A community’s land use regulations should be the sole determining factor in deciding whether a public meeting is required. Proposed Action V: Eliminate QAP scoring category #22. In order to earn points under scoring category #22, the developer must sponsor and hold meetings within the community and present their application. This DSHA policy is a barrier to fair housing choice because in order to earn the three points, developers will likely be required to make a public presentation of the proposed project, even if the project does not require a public hearing in order to obtain zoning approval. The fair housing rule of thumb is that an affordable housing project should not be subjected to a higher standard of public notification than market rate housing. To do so is discriminatory. A community’s land use regulations should be the sole determining factor in deciding whether a public meeting is required. Proposed Action VI: Expand the accessibility language in the QAP to include an explanation of the owner’s Section 504 responsibilities, i.e., 5% of the total units must be accessible to persons with mobility impairments and another 2% of the total units must be accessible to persons with sensory impairments. Proposed Action VII: Amend the QAP to require specific information on the nature and frequency of fair housing training provided to management staff. Proposed Action VIII: DSHA should co-sponsor, in partnership with DE NAHRO and the State Human Relations Commission, a fair housing training workshop for rental program managers. In order to meet the compliance requirements of DSHA programs, all managers of DSHA-assisted rental housing (including tax credit housing) should be required to attend this bi-annual training workshop at least once every two years. Evidence that attendance at the workshop occurred at least once in the past two years should be a checklist item on DSHA’s annual certification form. Proposed Action IX: Include the AI definition of racially, ethnically and LMI- concentrated areas in the HDF application package.


July 2011 Page 560

Proposed Action X: Include a list and a map of all racially, ethnically and LMI- concentrated census tracts in the HDF application package. Proposed Action XI: Amend the QAP and the HDF Project and Neighborhood Standards to encourage developers to provide affordable rental housing for families outside of areas of racial and ethnic concentration.

b. The requirements outlined in State Senate Bill (SB) 400 represent an impediment to fair housing choice. Senate Bill 400 (Chapter 40, Title 31, Section 4028 of the Delaware Code) requires that State senators and representatives be notified whenever a housing tax credit application is received by DSHA, approved by DSHA, or whenever DSHA makes a loan or grant to an affordable housing project under its Housing Development Fund (HDF). This legislation increases the likelihood that the proposed project will be resisted by NIMBYists or through political intervention. There exists no such notification requirement for conventional or market rate housing in Delaware. Therefore, the method of financing a residential development project is the key factor in determining whether notification is required under this legislation. This public policy is discriminatory. The local land use approval process should be the sole factor in determining the need for public notification. Tax credit housing or HDF-financed affordable housing should not be subjected to a higher standard of public notification than conventionally financed market rate housing. Notification policies have the potential to limit fair housing choice. Proposed Action: Each HUD entitlement jurisdiction throughout the State should send letters to Delaware’s state senators and representatives advising them that SB 400 has the potential to severely limit fair housing choice. A copy of the letter should be sent to Secretary Donovan at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The purpose of these measures is to document DSHA’s efforts to overcome statutory and regulatory barriers to fair housing choice.

c. A uniform definition of areas of concentration should be adopted and utilized by all HUD entitlement communities throughout the State. In the interest of statewide consistency and to enhance regional collaboration in promoting greater fair housing choice among the protected classes, a uniform definition of areas of concentration should be adopted and utilized by all entitlement communities throughout the State. It is recommended that the New Castle County and City of Wilmington definition be adopted, as it is used extensively throughout this AI in reference to impacted versus non-impacted areas. A uniform definition of areas of concentration will promote greater understanding and provide continuity on the use of the terms “impacted” versus “non-impacted” areas and will contribute to a consistent approach to affirmatively further fair housing and to promote greater housing choice throughout the State.


July 2011 Page 561

Overall, entitlement jurisdictions throughout the State should aim to balance investments in both impacted and non-impacted neighborhoods. Non-impacted neighborhoods, also referred to as communities of opportunity, are areas that do not contain concentrations of racial, ethnic, or LMI persons. Balancing affordable housing investments in impacted and non-impacted areas will promote greater housing choice, particularly for members of the protected classes. Proposed Action I: The Balance of State (DSHA), the City of Dover, and the City of Newark should adopt the New Castle County and City of Wilmington definition of areas of concentration to develop a consistent approach to affirmatively further fair housing and to promote greater housing choice throughout Delaware. Proposed Action II: Statewide affordable housing policies and the related policies of individual entitlement communities that promote affordable housing investments should promote a balanced approach to investing in the rehabilitation of existing housing units and/or the construction of new housing units by supporting the location of such projects in impacted areas and in communities of opportunity.

d. Impact fees, also referred to as sewer and water connection fees, discourage new housing construction, particularly affordable housing projects that are undertaken by non-profit housing developers and community development corporations. One drawback associated with impact fees is that they can discourage new housing construction, particularly projects that are undertaken by non-profit housing developers and community development corporations such as Habitat for Humanity (several chapters throughout Delaware), the Wilmington Housing Partnership, and other similar organizations. In order to encourage new construction of affordable rental and homeownership housing, county and local government entities should be willing to reduce and/or waive impact fees for affordable housing units. Proposed Action: County and local government entities throughout the State of Delaware should reduce and/or waive their respective sewer, water, and/or public facilities and services impact fees for area developers and non-profit organizations seeking to build affordable housing units, both renter and owner units.

e. The different policies and procedures established by each of the five Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs in the State make it very difficult for a voucher holder to port between the cities and counties, thereby restricting fair housing choice. Section 8 voucher holders are currently required to navigate five different policies in order to port between jurisdictions. Inter-agency collaboration between the Section 8 program providers, which would include a uniform set of policies and procedures, could conceivably expand fair housing choice by creating, in essence, one regional Section 8 market in which voucher holders could move freely from one community to another. Section 8 administrative agencies in Delaware


July 2011 Page 562

should collaborate in the provision of support services that enhance inter-jurisdictional mobility on the part of voucher holders. Proposed Action: Initiate inter-agency collaboration between the five Section 8 providers in Delaware. The first step should be to create a uniform set of porting requirements that would permit a voucher holder to move freely from one area of the State to another. By establishing continuity between the various Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs, the individual Section 8 agencies could significantly expand fair housing choice. One caveat of this proposed action involves the special status of DSHA as the State’s only Moving to Work (MTW) housing authority. Voucher holders under a MTW agency such as DSHA may port only with proof of employment., DSHA should collaborate with other Section 8 HCV agencies in the State to the extent that it can remain in compliance with the special regulatory requirements of the MTW program.

f. Regional collaboration among the various entitlement communities throughout the State is needed in order to remedy segregation and concentration issues that persist in the City of Wilmington. Without the active support and participation of surrounding jurisdictions throughout the State, it is unrealistic to believe that poverty, crime, unemployment, and welfare dependency can be abated in the City of Wilmington. Unless the various localities collaborate to develop a strategy to address these issues, the historic pattern of segregation in Wilmington may adversely affect the regional economy and housing market. Proposed Action I: Adopt local policies across jurisdictional borders that increase the supply of affordable rental housing for families in non-impacted areas outside of the City of Wilmington, preferably locations in proximity to suburban shopping malls where low wage and entry level jobs are readily available. Within these policies, establish production goals, i.e., at least 10% of all new housing in the State of Delaware will be dedicated to house lower income Wilmington residents who elect to move. Proposed Action II: Revitalize neighborhoods within the City of Wilmington so that middle class residents of other jurisdictions will want to move into the City. Proposed Action III: Limit redevelopment of public housing sites in the City of Wilmington in order to reduce racial, national origin, and poverty concentrations. Proposed Action IV: Encourage county planners and elected officials to consider the risks of failing to think and act regionally in terms of deconcentrating poverty in the City of Wilmington. Conduct affirmative furthering fair housing (AFFH) workshops with county planners and elected officials to underscore the responsibility of their jurisdictions to AFFH and to explain the relationship between fair housing and


July 2011 Page 563

increasing the supply of affordable housing in non-concentrated neighborhoods. Proposed Action V: Ease zoning and other regulatory barriers to affordable rental housing for families. Proposed Action VI: Incentivize the development of mixed income housing in non-impacted areas through inclusionary housing measures. Proposed Action VII: Enhance the mobility of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holders in the City of Wilmington by:

• Providing a list of rental properties and participating landlords in non-impacted neighborhoods,

• Expanding the supply of Section 8 properties in target locations by increasing the payment standard up to 130% of FMR,

• Providing mobility counseling and other supportive services to voucher holders,

• Encouraging voucher holders to overcome poor credit histories and providing incentives for saving towards security deposits and the purchase of automobiles, and;

• Collaborating to achieve uniform Section 8 Admin Plans amongst all HCV agencies in Delaware, making it easier for voucher holders to port to a neighboring community and/or apply for a voucher in a neighboring jurisdiction.

Proposed Action VIII: Monitor affirmative moves (i.e., moving from impacted census tracts to non-impacted census tracts) of Section 8 HCV holders and residents displaced from the demolition of public housing. Proposed Action IX: Expand collaboration and devote resources at the State and local level to further study regional fair housing issues, track accomplishments, and report regional achievements in the respective CAPERs.

g. There is an overall lack of data available to support the need for more affordable, accessible housing throughout the State. During the AI interviews and focus group meetings, advocacy organizations and Section 8 administrators reported that it is difficult for persons with mobility impairments to secure accessible, affordable rental housing. Due to the lack of reliable data relative to the housing needs of persons with mobility impairments, it is difficult to substantiate the unmet need for accessible dwelling units in Delaware. This information is essential to effective fair housing planning. In order to more accurately and efficiently track the number of persons with mobility impairments on waiting lists, PHAs and other assisted housing providers throughout the State should include questions on their respective housing applications relative to the accessibility needs of the applicant. Questions about the applicant’s accessibility needs are


July 2011 Page 564

permissible under the Fair Housing Act. Such questions affirmatively further fair housing because they enable the owner to better serve persons with disabilities. Moreover, waiting list data that includes this information can be used to more effectively analyze the need for mobility-accessible units in Delaware. In order to more accurately gauge the number of persons throughout the State that are in need of mobility-accessible housing units, DSHA should partner with other entitlement communities in conducting a statewide study aimed at analyzing the supply/demand characteristics of housing for persons with mobility impairments. Proposed Action I: To the extent that they are not already doing so, each PHA and other assisted housing providers in the State should include the following questions on their respective application forms:

Do you or any member of your family require a dwelling unit that is barrier-free and accessible to persons with mobility impairments (for example, a wheelchair-accessible unit)?

Are you and other members of your family able to go up and down stairs unassisted?

Do you or any member of your family require a dwelling unit with features designed to assist persons with hearing impairments?

Do you or any member of your family require a dwelling unit with features designed to assist persons with visual impairments?

Proposed Action II: DSHA should partner with other entitlement communities throughout Delaware in order to conduct a statewide study to determine the supply and demand characteristics of housing for persons with mobility impairments. Proposed Action III: DSHA should continue to include the “Special Unit Requirements Questionnaire” section on its combined public housing and Section 8 HCV application form to collect data on the number and type of mobility-accessible units needed.

h. Public transit service is largely limited to higher density areas and does not accommodate persons working evening, night, and weekend shifts. Lack of reliable 24-hour transportation to and from work is a significant barrier to fair housing choice in the State of Delaware. Black, Hispanic, and renter households are most likely to be transit-dependent. Among Black and Hispanic households, 18.5% and 12.3%, respectively, were transit-dependent, compared to 5.6% of White households in 2000. Almost 19% of renter households did not have access to a vehicle, compared to 4% of owner households. Transit-dependent riders are restricted in their employment opportunities by the limited DART service. With service operating primarily between


July 2011 Page 565

7AM and 11PM on weekdays, persons who work the second and third shifts do not have public transportation available to them, ensuring uninterrupted employment. With an even more limited weekend service schedule, persons who are required to work weekend shifts and depend on public transit to get to and from work are at a severe disadvantage. Proposed Action: Identify opportunities for the development of medium density affordable family housing along existing transit routes. Collaborate with the Delaware Transit Corporation (DART) to adequately serve this area with public transit.

i. Several policies and programs of statewide advocacy organizations could be improved from a fair housing perspective. Policies and programs of the Delaware Office of Human Relations (OHR)/ Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC) were reviewed as part of this analysis. In addition, several policies of programs of statewide advocacy organizations, including the Fair Share Housing Measure of the Delaware Housing Coalition (DHC), were also reviewed. The following observations were noted: From a fair housing perspective, one suggestion for DHC for improving upon the definition of targeted “Fair Share” census tracts would be to exclude any census tract as a target area that is defined by Delaware’s various entitlement entities as an impacted area and/or defined as an area of racial, ethnic, and/or LMI concentration in the AI. This information should then be shared with public policy makers throughout the State, including the planning and zoning offices of all three counties and their incorporated areas that administer land use regulations. Due to the increasing minority population statewide and the federal requirement to provide access to services for persons with limited English proficiency (LEP), the Delaware State Office of Human Relations (OHR) and the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC) should conduct the four-factor analysis to determine the extent to which the translation of vital documents is necessary to assist persons with LEP in accessing various statewide programs and services. If it is determined that the need for a LAP exists, OHR/DHRC must prepare the LAP in order to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Office of Human Relations (OHR), and more specifically the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC), has the authority to initiate complaints but rarely utilizes this authority. OHR/DHRC should be more aggressive in initiating complaints. Potential benefits from this scenario include the removal of any fears of retaliation for the tenant and increased education and awareness among landlords and property owners. OHR/DHRC should publicize its settlements to deter landlords from abusing the current system and to encourage persons to file fair housing complaints.


July 2011 Page 566

Proposed Action I: Build on the Delaware Housing Coalition’s regional fair share housing strategy by including an analysis of areas of racial, ethnic and lower income concentrations using 2010 census data. Define specific public policy initiatives at the state and county levels aimed at implementing the fair share housing strategy. Proposed Action II: OHR/DHRC should conduct the four-factor analysis to determine the extent to which the translation of vital documents is necessary to assist persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) in accessing various statewide programs and services. If it is determined that the need for a LAP exists, OHR/DHRC must prepare the LAP in order to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Proposed Action III: To eliminate a complainant’s fear of eviction, OHR/DHRC should be more aggressive in initiating complaints on behalf of Delawareans who feel they have been discriminated against. Proposed Action IV: OHR/DHRC should publicize its settlements to deter landlords and property management companies from abusing the current system in place and to encourage residents throughout the State to file fair housing complaints.

j. There exists a continuing need for quality fair housing education, outreach, training, and real estate testing throughout Delaware. The majority of complaints filed with the HUD FHEO office and CLASI alleged discrimination based on disability or race. Of the complaints filed with CLASI between January 2009 and October 2010, over 48% alleged discrimination based on disability while 28.5% alleged discrimination based on race. For complaints filed with the HUD FHEO office between January 2000 and August 2010, disability and race accounted for 42.6% and 36.1%, respectively, of the alleged bases for discrimination. Localities throughout the State of Delaware that have rental property registration, licensing, and/or inspection programs should encourage landlords and property management companies to attend fair housing training by providing a calendar of seminars to be provided in each county. This calendar should be updated regularly, provided at time of initial registration, and posted on various jurisdictional websites. The need for fair housing education and training extends beyond area landlords and property management companies. Elected officials, appoint board and commission members, real estate agents, and government staff dealing with zoning, code enforcement, housing, and community development programming should also be encouraged to attend annual fair housing trainings. Proposed Action I: DSHA should continue to provide funds to send housing site management staff to annual fair housing trainings.


July 2011 Page 567

Proposed Action II: Enlist the support of a local or statewide fair housing advocacy organization to provide real estate discrimination testing throughout the State. Proposed Action III: Localities throughout the State that have rental property registration, licensing, and/or inspection programs should encourage landlords and property management companies to attend fair housing training by providing a calendar of seminars to be offered in each county. This calendar should be updated regularly, provided at time of initial registration, and posted on various jurisdictional websites. Jurisdictions should work collaboratively to facilitate, coordinate, and market fair housing training seminars. Proposed Action IV: Area localities should also encourage members of appointed boards and commissions, elected officials, real estate agents, and municipal and county staff members that deal with housing, code enforcement, zoning, and community development issues to attend fair housing training on an annual basis.

ii. Private Sector a. Mortgage loan denials and high-cost lending disproportionately

affect minority applicants. The mortgage loan denial rates for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics decreased between 2007 and 2009, while the mortgage denial rates for Asians increased during this period. Even though the denial rates for most households decreased between 2007 and 2009, the overall denial rates for Blacks and Hispanics were higher than denial rates for White households during this period. Despite falling denial rates, Blacks continued to have higher denial rates than Whites. For example, in 2009, among upper-income Black households, the denial rate was 17.9% compared to 10% for White households. While this fact alone does not imply an impediment to fair housing choice, the pattern is consistent with discrimination. Despite a decline in high-cost loans between 2007 and 2009, Black households remain disproportionately represented among recipients of high-cost mortgage loans. This trend places the homes of minority households at greater risk for eviction, foreclosure, and bankruptcy. Proposed Action I: Investigate the feasibility of contracting for mortgage testing in the State. If possible, contract with an experienced firm to conduct such testing. Proposed Action II: Encourage HUD-approved homebuyer counseling providers to continue this invaluable service for lower income and minority households.


July 2011 Page 568

b. The News Journal, the Dover Post, Delaware State News – the State Capital Daily, and the Cape Gazette do not comply with Federal Fair Housing requirements. The real estate sections in The News Journal, the Dover Post, Delaware State News – the State Capital Daily, and the Cape Gazette included prohibition of and/or restrictions on pets. For some persons with disabilities, service animals and therapeutic pets are necessary to achieve independent lives. Statements prohibiting or limiting pets discourage persons with disabilities that require service or therapeutic animals from applying for, or even inquiring about, these units. Proposed Action: Recommend to The News Journal, the Dover Post, Delaware State News – the State Capital Daily, and the Cape Gazette to revise their respective publisher’s policies to include a statement to the effect of “All advertisements prohibiting or restricting pets shall be made with the understanding that such policies shall not apply to persons with disabilities, as defined by the Fair Housing Act, who require service or companion animals.”

L. Regional Fair Housing Action Plan Based on the identified impediments to fair housing choice and the proposed actions included in the previous section, the following Fair Housing Action Plan has been developed. The format of this chart should more easily facilitate the completion of statewide goals to affirmative further fair housing choice.


July 2011 Page 569

Figure 7-22 Regional Fair Housing Action Plan

Goals Strategies to Meet Goals Responsible Entities BenchmarkYear to be Completed

Proposed Investment

Date Completed

Amend QAP and related documents to more accurately reflect Delaware's commitment to affi rmatively further fa i r hous ing.

A. Under scoring category 17(B) in the QAP, redefine impacted areas to include census tracts located in areas of racia l , ethnic, and/or LMI concentration.

B. Send letters to members of Delaware's federa l legis lative delegation advis ing them of the statutory contradiction between Section 42 of the Interna l Revenue Code and the Hous ing and Community Development Act of 1974 and related statutes as i t relates to affi rmatively furthering fa i r hous ing.

C. Amend the QAP to identi fy the speci fi c census tracts in Delaware that are impacted (us ing DSHA’s defini tion) and racia l ly, ethnica l ly and/or LMI concentrated (us ing the defini tion in the AI).

D. El iminate QAP scoring categories 8 and 22.

E. Expand the access ibi l i ty language in the QAP to include an explanation of the owner’s Section 504 respons ibi l i ties .

A. DSHA

B. DSHA

C. DSHA

D. DSHA

E. DSHA

A. 2012

B. 2012

C. 2012

D. 2012

E. 2012

A. $0

B. $0

C. $0

D. $0

E. $0

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

Impediment #1: The State's Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and related policies should be revised to reflect Delaware's commitment to affirmatively further fair housing.


July 2011 Page 570


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

Amend QAP and related documents to more accurately reflect Delaware's commitment to affi rmatively further fa i r hous ing.

F. Amend the QAP to require speci fi c information on the nature and frequency of fa i r hous ing tra ining provided to management staff.

G. DSHA, in partnership with DHRC and DE NAHRO, should co‐sponsor a bi ‐annual fa i r hous ing tra ining to occur every other year.

H. Include the AI defini tion of racia l ly, ethnica l ly, and LMI‐concentrated areas in the HDF appl ication.

I . Include a l i s t and a map of al l racia l ly, ethnica l ly, and LMI‐concentrated census tracts in the HDF appl ication.

J. Amend the QAP and HDF Project and Neighborhood Standards to encourage developers to provide affordable renta l hous ing for fami l ies outs ide of areas of racia l and ethnic concentration.

F. DSHA

G. DSHA, DHRC, DE NAHRO

H. DSHA

I. DSHA

J. DSHA

F. 2012

G. Annual ly

H. 2012

I. 2012

J. 2012

F. $0

G. $2,500

H. $0

I . $0

J. $0

F.

G.

H.

I .

J.

Impediment #1: The State's Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and related policies should be revised to reflect Delaware's commitment to affirmatively further fair housing. (Continued)


July 2011 Page 571


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

Educate state senators and representatives on the potentia l impediments to fa i r hous ing choice associated with SB 400.

Send letters to Delaware's state senators and representatives advis ing them that SB 400 has the potentia l to severely l imit fa i r hous ing choice. A copy of this letter should also be sent to HUD.

City of Wilmington, New Castle County, City of Dover, City of Newark, DSHA

2012 $0

To ensure statewide cons is tency and to enhance regional col laboration, adopt a statewide defini tion of areas of concentration to be uti l i zed by al l HUD enti tlement communities .

A. DSHA, the City of Dover, and the City of Newark should adopt the City of Wilmington and New Castle County defini tion of areas of concentration to develop a cons is tent approach to affi rmatively further fa i r hous ing.

B. Statewide affordable hous ing pol icies and the related pol icies of individual enti tlement communities should promote a balanced approach to investing in concentrated areas and in communities of opportunity.

A. City of Dover, City of Newark, DSHA

B. City of Wilmington, New Castle County, City of Dover, City of Newark, DSHA, State government

A. 2012

B. Ongoing

A. $0

B. $0

A.

B.

Impediment #2: The requirements outlined in State Senate Bill (SB) 400 represent an impediment to fair housing choice.

Impediment #3: A uniform definition of areas of concentration should be adopted and utilized by all entitlement communities throughout the State.


July 2011 Page 572


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

To promote and encourage the development of affordable renta l and owner hous ing throughout the State

County and loca l government enti ties throughout the State of Delaware should reduce and/or waive their respective sewer, water, and/or publ ic faci l i ties and services impact fees for area developers and non‐profi t organizations seeking to bui ld affordable hous ing units , both renter and owner units .

Loca l and county governments throughout the State

Ongoing TBD

Promote inter‐agency col laboration among the various Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs throughout the State to expand fa i r hous ing choice.

Ini tiate inter‐agency col laboration between the five Section 8 providers . Create a uni form set of porting requirements that would permit a voucher holder to move freely from one area of the State to another. DSHA's MTW program contains regulatory requirements that wil l have to be cons idered during this process .

WHA, NCCHA, NHA, DHA, DSHA

2012‐2013 $0

Impediment #4: Impact fees, also referred to as sewer and water connection fees, discourage new housing construction, particularly affordable housing projects that are undertaken by non‐profit housing developers and community development corporations.

Impediment #5: The different policies and procedures established by each of the five Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs in the State make it very difficult for a voucher holder to port between the cities and counties, thereby restricting fair housing choice.


July 2011 Page 573


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

Develop a regional strategy to address the his toric pattern of segregation in Wilmington.

A. Adopt loca l pol icies across juri sdictiona l borders that increase the supply of affordable renta l hous ing for fami l ies in non‐impacted areas outs ide of Wilmington.

B. Revi ta l i ze neighborhoods within the City of Wilmington so that middle class res idents of other juri sdictions wil l want to move into the City.

C. Limit redevelopment of publ ic hous ing s i tes in the City of Wilmington.

D. Encourage county planners and elected officia ls to cons ider the ri sks of fa i l ing to think and act regional ly in terms of deconcentrating poverty in Wilmington. Conduct AFFH workshops with county planners and elected officia ls .

E. Ease zoning and other regulatory barriers to affordable renta l hous ing for fami l ies .

F. Incentivize the development of mixed income hous ing in non‐impacted areas .

A. City of Wilmington, New Castle County, City of Dover, DSHA

B. City of Wilmington, non‐profi t and for‐profi t hous ing developers

C. WHA

D, E, and F. City of Wilmington, New Castle County, City of Dover, DSHA, Kent County, Sussex County

A. 2012

B. Ongoing

C. Ongoing

D. Ongoing

E. 2012

F. Ongoing

A.$0

B. $0

C. $0

D. TBD

E. $0

F. TBD

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

Impediment #6: Regional collaboration among the various entitlement communities throughout the State is needed in order to remedy segregation and concentration issues that persist in the City of Wilmington.


July 2011 Page 574


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

Develop a regional strategy to address the his toric pattern of segregation in Wilmington.

G. Enhance the mobi l i ty of Section 8 Hous ing Choice Voucher holders in the City of Wilmington.

H. Monitor affi rmative moves of Section 8 HCV holders and res idents displaced from the demol i tion of publ ic hous ing.

I . Expand col laboration and devote resources at the State and loca l level to further study regional fa i r hous ing i s sues , track accompl ishments , and report regional achievements in the respective CAPERs .

G. WHA, NCCHA, DHA, NHA, DSHA

H. WHA

I . City of Wilmington, New Castle County, City of Dover, DSHA,

G. Ongoing

H. Ongoing

I . Ongoing

G. $0

H. $0

I . TBD

G.

H.

I .

Impediment #6: Regional collaboration among the various entitlement communities throughout the State is needed in order to remedy segregation and concentration issues that persist in the City of Wilmington. (Continued)


July 2011 Page 575


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

More accurately and efficiently track the number of persons throughout the State that are in need of mobi l i ty‐access ible hous ing units .

A. Add questions onto PHA hous ing appl ications to faci l i tate the col lection of more accurate information in regard to the type of access ible unit needed, including speci fi c amenities .

B. Conduct a statewide study to determine the supply and demand characteris tics of hous ing for persons with mobi l i ty impairments .

C. DSHA should continue to include the "Specia l Unit Requirements Questionnaire" section on i ts combined publ ic hous ing and Section 8 HCV appl ication form.

A. WHA, NHA, NCCHA, DHA

B. DSHA, area advocacy organizations , other enti tlement communities

C. DSHA

A. 2012

B. 2012‐2013

C. Ongoing

A. $0

B. $5,000

C. $0

A.

B.

C.

Increase access to publ ic trans i t in non‐concentrated areas .

Identi fy opportunities for the development of affordable fami ly hous ing along exis ting trans i t routes . Col laborate with DART to adequately serve this area with publ ic trans i t.

City of Wilmington, New Castle County, City of Dover, City of Newark, DSHA, DART

Ongoing $0

Impediment #7: There is an overall lack of data available to support the need for more affordable, accessible housing throughout the State.

Impediment #8: Public transit service is largely limited to higher density areas and does not accommodate persons working evening, night, and weekend shifts.


July 2011 Page 576


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

Improve various pol icies and programs of statewide advocacy organizations such as DHC and DHRC.

A. Bui ld on DHC's regional fa i r share hous ing strategy by including an analys i s of areas of racia l , ethnic, and lower income concentrations us ing 2010 Census data. Define speci fi c publ ic pol icy ini tiatives at the state and county levels aimed at implementing the fa i r share hous ing strategy.

B. OHR/DHRC should conduct the four‐factor analys i s to determine the extent to which the trans lation of vi ta l documents i s necessary to ass i s t persons with LEP in access ing various statewide services .

C. OHR/DHRC should be more aggress ive in ini tiating compla ints on behal f of Delawareans who feel they have been discriminated aga inst.

D. OHR/DHRC should publ ici ze i ts settlements to deter landlords and property management companies from abus ing the current system in place and to encourage res idents throughout the State to fi le fa i r hous ing compla ints .

A. DHC

B. OHR/DHRC

C. OHR/DHRC

D. OHR/DHRC

A. 2012

B. 2012

C. Ongoing

D. Ongoing

A. $0

B. TBD

C. TBD

D. TBD

A.

B.

C.

D.

Impediment #9: Several policies and programs of statewide advocacy organizations could be improved from a fair housing perspective.


July 2011 Page 577


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

Increase opportunities for fa i r hous ing education, outreach, tra ining, and rea l estate testing throughout Delaware.

A. Continue to provide funds to send housing site management staff to annual fair housing trainings.

B. Enlist the support of a local or statewide fair housing advocacy organization to provide real estate discrimination testing throughout the State.

C. Localities throughout the State that have rental property registration, licensing, and/or inspection programs should encourage landlords and property management companies to attend fair housing training by providing a calendar of seminars to be provided in each county. This calendar should be updated regularly, provided at time of initial registration, and posted on various jurisdictional websites. Jurisdictions should work collaboratively to facilitate, coordinate, and market fair housing seminars.

D. Area localities should also encourage members of appointed boards and commissions, elected officials, real estate agents, and municipal and county staff that deal with housing, community development, zoning, and code enforcement issues to attend an annual fair housing training.

A. DSHA

B. DHRC, DHC, DCRAC

C. & D . City of Wilmington, New Castle County, City of Dover, City of Newark, Kent County, Sussex County

A. Annual ly

B. Ongoing; Annual ly

C. Annual ly

D. Annual ly

A. $2,500

B. TBD

C. TBD

D. TBD

A.

B.

C.

D.

Impediment #10: There exists a continuing need for quality fair housing education, outreach, training, and real estate testing throughout the State.


July 2011 Page 578


Proposed Investment

Date Completed

Increase and enhance fa i r hous ing outreach and education efforts throughout the State.

A. Investigate the feas ibi l i ty of contracting for mortgage testing in the State. If poss ible, contract with an experienced fi rm to conduct such testing.

B. Encourage HUD‐approved homebuyer counsel ing providers to continue this invaluable resource for lower income and minori ty households .

A. OHR/DHRC, CLASI, DCRAC

B. Area lenders , advocacy orgs , al l HUD enti tlement communities

A. Ongoing

B. Ongoing

A. TBD

B. $0

El iminate discriminatory language in real estate advertisements .

Recommend to The News Journal, the Dover Post, the Cape Gazette, and Delaware State News ‐ the State Capital Daily to revise their respective publ isher's pol icies to include a statement to the effect of "Al l adverti sements prohibi ting or restricting pets sha l l be made with the understanding that such pol icies sha l l not apply to persons with disabi l i ties , as defined by the Fa ir Hous ing Act, who require service or companion animals ."

City of Wilmington, New Castle County, City of Dover, DSHA, DHRC

2012 $0

Impediment #12: Several newspapers, including The News Journal , Dover Post , Delaware State News ‐ the State Capital Daily , and the Cape Gazette , do not comply with the Federal Fair Housing requirements.

Impediment #11: Mortgage loan denials and high‐cost lending disproportionately affect minority applicants.


July 2011 Page 579

8. APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS This appendix provides a list of acronyms commonly used throughout the document.

• Admissions and Continued Occupancy Plan (ACOP)

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

• Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)

• Annual Plan (AP)

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program

• Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI)

• Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)

• Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)

• Consolidated Plan (CP)

• Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council (DCRAC)

• Delaware Housing Coalition (DHC)

• Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC)

• Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA)

• Diamond State Community Land Trust (DSCLT)

• Dover Housing Authority (DHA)

• Fair Market Rent (FMR)

• Farm Services Administration/ Rural Housing Service (FSA/RHS) Loan

• Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Loan

• Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)

• Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)

• Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)

• Housing Development Fund (HDF)

• Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA)

• Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware (HOND)

• Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program (HRLP)

• International Code Council (ICC)

• Kent County Association of Realtors (KCAOR)

• Language Access Plan (LAP)


July 2011 Page 580

• Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

• Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program

• Low and Moderate Income (LMI)

• Median Household Income (MHI)

• Moving to Work (MTW) Program

• Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)

• Newark Housing Authority (NHA)

• New Castle County Board of Realtors (NCCBOR)

• New Castle County Housing Authority (NCCHA)

• Office of Human Relations (OHR)

• Public Housing Authority (PHA)

• Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP)

• Sussex County Association of Realtors (SCAOR)

• Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program

• Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS)

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

• Veterans Administration (VA) Loan

• Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA)


July 2011 Page 581

9. APPENDIX B: PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS This appendix provides a list of stakeholders invited to participate in various focus group sessions and interviews as part of the AI planning process.

CITY OF WILMINGTON

• Department of Licenses and Inspections • Department of Real Estate and Housing • Planning Department • Wilmington Housing Authority • Wilmington Housing Partnership • Ministry of Caring • Ingelside Homes • West End Neighborhood House • Cornerstone West • Interfaith Community Housing

NEW CASTLE COUNTY

• Department of Community Services, Community Development and Housing Division

• Department of Land Use • Habitat for Humanity of New Castle County • New Castle County Housing Authority • Newark Housing Authority • City of Newark Planning and Zoning Department • New Castle County Board of Realtors (NCCBOR)

CITY OF DOVER

• Department of Planning and Inspections • Dover Housing Authority • Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity • House of Pride, Inc.

BALANCE OF STATE Kent County

• Division of Inspections and Enforcement • Division of Planning and Zoning • Kent County Association of Realtors (KCOAR) • Milford Housing Development Corporation • Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity


July 2011 Page 582

Sussex County • Department of Community Development and Housing • Department of Planning and Zoning • Building Code Department • Sussex County Association of Realtors (SCOAR) • Milford Housing Development Corporation • Better Homes of Seaford • Sussex County Habitat for Humanity • Dagsboro Church of God • La Esperanza

STATEWIDE

• Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) • Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC)/ Office of Human Relations

(OHR) • UCP of Delaware, Inc. • NCALL Research, Inc. • Connections CSP • ARC of Delaware • Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware (HOND) • Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI) • Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council (DCRAC) • State Council for Persons with Disabilities • DHSS – Independent Living • Independent Resources • Statewide Housing Task Force • Department of Labor • Diamond State Community Land Trust (DSCLT) • Delaware Housing Coalition (DHC) • First State Community Action Agency • Discover Bank • JP Morgan Chase • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware


July 2011 Page 583

10. APPENDIX C: ZONING REVIEWS This appendix provides a summary chart for each of the zoning ordinances reviewed as part of the AI analysis.

Figure 10-1

City of Wilmington Zoning Ordinance Review

Date of ordinance 1962Updates Updated concurrently w ith neighborhood plans on a rolling basis

Smallest minimum residential lot size permitted

Ordinance describes residential areas in terms of net residential density, as in dw elling units per acre of land. Max number of units per acre is low est in R-1 (6). The maximum ranges from 17 in medium-low R-2 to 48 in medium-high R-4 and extends as high as 390 units per acre in R-5C.

Alternative design

Land use plan states that conversions of single-family dw ellings to multi-family is "no longer in favor." To expand number of housing units suitable for smaller households, the City suggests luxury apartments dow ntow n or the rehab of commercial space to create lofts. Neither w ould provide affordable housing.

Definition of family

Any number of individuals legally related through blood, marriage or adoption, including residents of foster homes, or up to four unrelated individuals living and cooking together and functioning as a single housekeeping unit, not including persons residing together for temporary, transitional or corrective purposes.

Treatment of group homes

Ordinance defines tw o types: Type I has betw een f ive and 10 members, w hile Type II has 11 to 15. Type I is permitted by right in all residential districts, w hile Type II must gain approval from the board of adjustment to locate in single-family detached zones.

The City should consider policy options that encourage the development of affordable housing options in areas of opportunity.

Could be updated to reflect w ider array of modern living situations.

The Fair Housing Act protects persons recovering from substance abuse (as disabled), a fact that should inform the City's treatment of group homes for this purpose.

Comments

Zoning districts and dwelling unit types permitted by right

Single-family: R-1 (detached only), R-2 (R-1 and semi-detached), R-2A (R-2 and conversions), R-3 (R-2 and row homes)

A w ide array of districts and permitted uses has facilitated extensive housing variety across the City w hile allow ing for the development of individual neighborhood character.

Medium to very high density: R-4 (row homes w ith conversions, group homes for 11-15), R-5A (garden apartments), R-5A1 (low - to medium-density apartments), R-5B (apartments, duplexes, multiplexes), R-5C (high-density apartments)


July 2011 Page 584

Figure 10-2

New Castle County Zoning Ordinance Review

Date of ordinance December 1997Amended through October 2010

Suburban reserve, estate - SF detachedSuburban - SF detachedSuburban transition- SF det, attached, apartmentsNeighborhood conservation - variousManufactured homeOffice neighborhood, commercial neighborhood - mixedSuburban reserve - 1-5 acres for SF; suburban estate - 2 acresSuburban - 1 acre for SFSF attached 2,200 - 4,900 sq ft in all permissible areasApartments - 1,800 sq ft in all permissible areas

Alternative design

Workforce housing ordinance adopted in 2008 provides incentives for developers to create projects in w hich at least 20% of new dw elling units are affordable to LMI HHs. All qualifying units must be ow ner-occupied, are subject to 15-year affordability period. Incentives include density bonus, reductions in site and building standards and expedited review process.


Any number of individuals legally related through blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship, including individuals placed for foster care by an authorized agency, or up to four unrelated individuals living and cooking together and functioning as a single housekeeping unit using certain rooms and housekeeping facilities in common


Ordinance defines group home as a building that w ould otherw ise be characterized as a SF home except for the fact that the number of unrelated individuals living in the unit does not qualify under the definition of family. Shall be a family living environment, not an institutional environment, w here staff manages the living and controls activities. Does not apply to co-ops, nursing homes, boarding houses or other insitutional or commercial lodging.

Comments

Large min. development sites for subdivisions and PUDs present obstacle to affordable hsg devt

Caps number of unrelated HH members at 4, but ordinance has a separate definition to except group homes as a different use. Therefore, not ideally broad, but also not in violation of the FHA.

No cap imposed on the number of residents, use allow ed in all residential zones.


Most of County is single-family suburban estate, suburban reserve and suburban. Site opportunities for higher-density and MF housing limited. ST district is <1% of land.

Ordinance is a model of inclusionary housing, w ill expand array of affordable housing options across county



July 2011 Page 585

Figure 10-3

Town of Elsmere Zoning Ordinance Review

R-1: Single-family dw elling

R-2: One- or tw o-family dw elling, tow nhouse

R-GA: Tow nhouse, garden apartments

PUD: Single-family dw elling, tow nhouse, garden apartments

R-1: 5,000 - 6,000 sfR-2: 5,000 - 6,000 sfR-GA: 2,300 - 3,500, for apartment structures: 130,680 sfPUD: 5,000 (single-family), 2,000 (tow nhouse)

Alternative designPUD provisions facilitate cluster construction of homes on smaller lots w ith larger areas of green space, but do not include an affordable housing setaside.

Definition of family One or more persons related by blood or marriage occupying a dw elling unit and living as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit


No definition, not a specif ied allow able land use in any district.

Family definition prevents group homes from locating in any single-family district.

Comments


Structures housing 3+ families are allow ed by right only in garden apartment districts, w hich allow no more than 12 units per structure


Lot minimums accommodate variety of housing styles

Does not technically allow anyone unrelated to live together. Violates Fair Housing Act.

Date of ordinance 2005

Adoption of policy similar to county's w orkforce housing ordinance could expand housing choice


July 2011 Page 586

Figure 10-4

City of Newark Zoning Ordinance Review

RH, RT, RS - SF detachedRD - SF semidetached plus RH/RT/RS usesRM - all uses above plus low -rise apartmentsRA - all uses above plus high-rise apartmentsRR - all uses above plus rowAC - garden apartment communities

RH: 21,870 sf

RT: 15,000 sf

RS: 9,000 sf

RD: 2,275 sf/ family for garden apts, 6,250 sf other uses

Alternative design None noted

Definition of familyOne or more related individuals customarily and permanently living together as a single housekeeping unit and using certain rooms and housekeeping facilities in common

Treatment of group homes No definition, not a specif ied allow able land use in any district.


Comments

Adoption of policy similar to county's w orkforce housing ordinance could expand housing choiceDoes not technically allow anyone unrelated to live together. Violates Fair Housing Act.


Ample variety in def initions, but only a small portion of land zoned to allow multi-family dw elling types by right


Large minimum lot sizes in certain districts limit areas w here affordable housing can be developed



July 2011 Page 587

Figure 10-5 New Castle City Zoning Ordinance Review

R1 - SF detached, PUDR2 - R1 uses plus SF semi-detached and tw o-family detached

R1 - 7,500 sfR2 - 6,000 sf (detached), 3,000 (semi-detached)R3 - Ranges from 2,000 (SF attached) to 8,000 (multiple dw elling)

Alternative designPUD provisions facilitate cluster construction of homes on smaller lots w ith larger areas of green space, but do not include an affordable housing setaside.


One or more persons occupying a single housekeeping unit and using common cooking facilities, provided that, unless all members are related by blood or marriage, no such family shall contain over f ive persons


1968

R3 - R2 uses plus SF attached, tw o-family attached and semi-detached, multiple dw elling

Adoption of policy similar to county's w orkforce housing ordinance could expand housing choice


Comments


City divided into large zones. Reasonable amount of land allotted for MF uses.


Some undeveloped land in R3 available for development

Should be amended to include exception for group homes for persons w ith disabilities

Date of ordinance


July 2011 Page 588

Figure 10-6 City of Dover Zoning Ordinance Review

Date of ordinance 1975Updates Map redraw n in 2008, consistent w ith Comprehensive Plan

Single-family districts: 7,000 sf - 20,000 sf

General residential and group zones: 7,500 sf (single-family detached), 5,000 sf (semi-detached)

Medium-density zones: 3,000 sf - 8,000 sf

Multifamily dw ellings: 1,700 sf - 3,000 sf lot area per unit

High-density zones: 600 sf - 900 sf lot area per unit

Alternative design

PND relaxes bulk standards, requires more open space and recreational areas, permits various housing styles in all zones, provides incentives to mix housing types. THD (traditional neighborhood design) promotes w alkable mixed-use areas.

Definition of familyOne or more persons occupying a dw elling unit as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit. Does not include more than f ive persons not related by blood, marriage or adoption.


No definition. Could presumably exist as single-family unless it exceeds f ive residents.


City has 14 residential zones, most of w hich support single-family homes as w ell as a mix of dw elling types and densities. Five single-family zones allow detached units only; general residential zones allow garden apts by right and other multifamily structures conditionally; and medium-density residential allow single-family as w ell as duplexes, multiplexes, tow nhouses and boarding houses for up to f ive roomers.

City has intentionally avoided exclusionary zoning, instead designating underdeveloped areas as medium-density and high-density zones.

The City allow s for a w ide range of housing types and densities across its land area. Lot sizes are not prohibitive to the development of affordable housing.

Residential high density: Medium-density res, general res, general res/off ice, group housing, high-rise residential, mid-rise residential, mobile home park, neighborhood commercial


Aside from potential w ider range of housing types in single-family zones, no effect on housing choice for members of the protected classes.

No explicit exception for group homes for persons w ith disabilities.

Cap on unrelated residents sharing home prevents any group home from having more than f ive residents. This is inconsistent w ith the Fair Housing Act.

Comments

Residential low density: 5 single-family districts, one neighborhood commercial district

Residential medium density: tw o SF districts, 2 medium density res districts, 2 general res districts, group housing, general residence/off ice, neighborhood commercial, mobile home park


July 2011 Page 589

Figure 10-7 Kent County Zoning Ordinance Review

Date of ordinance July 1991Amended through 2010

Agricultural conservation, ag residential - SF detached

RS1 - SF detached

RMH- manufactured homes

RM - multifamily residential

Agricultural conservation, ag residential - 43,560 - 435,600 sf

RS1 - 7,500 - 32,670 sf

RMH - 3,600 sf - 32,670 sf

RM - 1,600 sf - 6,000 sf

Alternative design

Planned Unit Development is a conditional use for tracts w ith a minimum of 50 acres. Cluster development provisions allow for density transfers as long as the overall tract density meets zoning district requirements. In AC and AR, clusters can include only SF detached, lot-line and village homes. In RS1 and RS5, patio homes and duplex also permitted. Tow nhouses and multiplex limited to R5.

ECHO homes allow small, temporary homes to be built on SF lots as an accessory use in AC, AR, RS1 and RMH to allow adult children to care for aging parents.


Tw o or more persons related by blood or marriage living together and occupying a single housekeeping unit w ith single culinary facilities, or a group of not more than four persons living together by joint agreement and occupying an single housekeeping unit w ith single culinary facilities on a nonprofit, cost-sharing basis.


Defines tw o types of community-based residential dw ellings for 4-10 unrelated individuals: Those serving elderly and disabled persons are permitted by right in all residential districts, w hile those for any other purpose (halfw ay house, substance abuse treatment facilities) are conditional uses.

RS5 - 1,600 sf (tow nhomes), 6,000 sf (multiplex), 7,500 - 32,680 sf (SF detached)

Because those recovering from substance abuse are protected as "disabled" under the Fair Housing Act, the county's additional restrictions on substance abuse treatment facilities are unlaw ful.

Comments

This eases density restrictions, but does not include an affordable housing set-aside. PUD/cluster provisions do not provide opportunity to expand array of structure types than can be built in single-family districts.

ECHO represents an affordable housing option for households in very specif ic limited cases.

Limits the number of unrelated household members to four. This can restrict housing choice for non-traditional families, but the ordinance's exeption for group homes means it does not violate fair housing law .


Vast majority of land zoned as agricultural, w here multifamily dw ellings are not a by-right or conditional use. This limits many types of affordable housing to small fraction of land in RS5 or RM.


Wide range of minimum lot sizes allow s for the development of housing at a variety of styles and affordability levels, though smaller minimums apply to only a minimal percentage of county land available for development.

RS5 - medium-density SF, duplex, multiplex, tow nhouse. Apartments not permitted.


July 2011 Page 590

Figure 10-8 Sussex County Zoning Ordinance Review

Date of ordinance 1982Amended through 2010

MR - SF detached, multifamily conditionalGR - SF detached, mobile homes, multifamily conditionalHR-1, HR-2 all MR uses plus multifamily, tow nhouses, boarding UR - For municipalities w ithout ordinances. Flexible.RPC - Residential planned communities

AR-1 - 20,000; AR-2 - 15,000 sf

MR - 10,000 sf

GR - 10,000 sf

HR-1, HR-2 - 7,500 sf

UR - 10,000

Mixed-use zones permitting dw ellings - 10,000 sf

Alternative design

Through the MPHU program, the county provides developers w ith incentives in exchange for setaside of units available to households betw een 80% and 125% AMI. The spin-off SCRP program is a voluntary initiative intended to stimulate the expansion of the affordable rental inventory.


Any individual or tw o or more persons w ho are related by blood or marriage living together and occupying a single housekeeping unit w ith single culinary facilities or a group of not more than four persons living together by joint agreement and occupying a single housekeeping unit w ith single culinary facilities on a nonprofit, cost-sharing basis.


MPHU and SCRP are consistent w ith best practices in inclusionary housing policy.

While a majority of land is zoned as agricultural, these districts allow for multi-family and tow nhome dw ellings conditionally, ensuring that location opportunities for a variety of dw elling types are not duly unrestricted.


Comments


Apartments not permitted in medium-density districts, though the ordinance provides multiple zones w here higher-density residential uses are allow ed by right or conditionally. The percentage of land dedicated to this purpose is extremely minimal.

Because the ordinance has no exception for group homes for persons w ith disabilities, any such facility w ith more than four residents w ould not be permitted to locate in a single-family neighborhood. This restriction is in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

AR-1, AR-2 - SF detached, tow nhomes in certain areas conditional



July 2011 Page 591

Figure 10-9 Town of Milford Zoning Ordinance Review


R-1 - SF detachedR-2 - SF detached, semi-detached a conditional useR-3 - All R2 plus garden apts and tow nhousesR-1 - 10,000 sf

Alternative design

Conversion of a one-family dw elling into multiple dw elling units is conditionally allow ed in R-1 if a dw elling is structurally sound but too large to be in demand for one-family use.

Density bonus up to 10% may be granted, among other reasons, for PUD design that integrates a variety of housing structure types (semi-detached, duplex, multiplex, tow nhouse and garden apartment in addition to SF home)

Definition of familyOne or more persons related by blood or marriage or a group of no more than f ive unrelated persons living together as a household in a dw elling


Comments



PUD provisions allow for w ider array of structure types to be built in single-family districts. Conversion allow ance provides f lexibility that could facilitate affordable housing under certain circumstances.



R-2 - SF: 8,000 sf, 13,000 sf for corner lots. Semi-detached: 4,000 - 6,500 sfR-3 - 7,500 sf (1-2 family) Max apartment units/building: 12. Tpw nhouses: 2,000 sf/unit, max 8 units per group

Milford does not permit apartment unit buildings of more than three stories or 12 units. Minimum lot size thresholds not prohibitive to affordable development.


July 2011 Page 592

Figure 10-10 Town of Smyrna Zoning Ordinance Review


A - SF detachedR1, RA1 - SF detachedR2 - R1 plus duplex, semi-attachedR2A - R2 plus attached dw ellings up to7 units in rowR3 - R2 plus all attached dw ellingsA - none specif iedR1 - 11,000 sf, R1A - 6,500 sfR2 - 6,500 sfR2A - 6,500 sf (SF det), 3,500 sf (semidet), 1,500 (attached)R3 - 5,500 sf (SF det), 2,500 (semidet), 1,500 (attached)

Alternative design None noted

Definition of family None specif ied

Treatment of group homes No definition

Definition of "one-family dw elling" specif ies "designed for one family only," though ordinance does not define "family." Lack of definition provides f lexibility for a variety of living arrangements.


Residential districts divided into districts of various character, density and minimum lot size, allow ing for a variety of housing types.

Group homes could feasibly qualify as "family" due to lack of definition, could locate in any residential district.

Comments



July 2011 Page 593

Figure 10-11 Town of Georgetown Zoning Ordinance Review

Date of ordinance 1989UR1, UR2, UR3 - SF detached

UR1 - no lot size specif ied, but yard req'ts applyUR2, UR3 - 10,000 sf

MR2 - Same as MR1, but no more than 9 units/acre

Alternative design

Residential Planned Community overlay district can provide f lexibility in regulations for housing types, minimum lot sizes, maximum heights, minimum yard requirements and accessory uses. Tracts must be at least 10 acres to qualify.


An individual or tw o or more persons w ho are related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together and occupying a single housekeeping unit w ith single culinary facilities, or a group of no more than four adults living together by joint agreement and occupying a single housekeeping unit w ith single culinary facilities on a nonprofit, cost-sharing basis.


No definition specif ied, though the definition of boarding house "shall not include homes for the mentally retarded, handicapped, alcoholic rehabilitants or any other person w hose fees are paid by a person other than the roomer or lodger."

Comments


Code does not specify any zone w here such a facility is a use by right. The four-unrelated-person cap in the definition of family means that a group home w ith more than four residents cannot live by right in a single-family district.

MR1, MR2 - UR uses plus SF semidetached, duplex, multiplex, tw o-family semidetached, tow nhouses

MR1 - 7,200 (SF detached), 4,840 sf otherw ise unless lot contains more than one detached structure. No more than 12 units/acre


Majority of space falls into urban, medium or neighborhood districts restricted to single-family detached housing. Other housing types permitted in more sparse, scattered multi-family zones.


Similar to PUD provisions elsew here, does not involve affordable units setaside.


July 2011 Page 594

11. APPENDIX D: PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Analysis of Impediments

Public Hearing Minutes

May 12, 2011 The public hearing was called to order at 1:15 pm at the John W. Pitts Center.

Paul Reynolds, Consultant for New Castle County introduced HUD entitlement jurisdictions that are covered by the State-wide Analysis of Impediments (AI):

• Delaware State Housing Authority: Anas Ben Addi, Director and Karen Horton, Principal Planner

• New Castle County: Marcus Henry, General Manager Department of Community Services, Carrie Casey, Community Development and Housing Manager and Paul Reynolds, Consultant

• City of Wilmington: Tim Crawl-Bey, Director of Real Estate & Housing and Nailah Gilliam, Program Management Director

• City of Dover: Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development and Tracey Harvey, Community Development Manager

Mr. Reynolds stated that the four jurisdictions discussed the idea and joint effort to do an Analysis of Impediments State-wide. The Request for Proposals was put out March of 2010 and Mullen and Lonergan were awarded the contract on June 23, 2010. Eric Fulmer was introduced as the president who is now retired as of May 1st and Marjorie Williams as the Chief Architect and Planner.

Ms. Williams stated the first meeting was scheduled with the Fair Housing Task Force to begin the process on September 14, 2010. It has been a 9 month period to complete the Regional AI for the State of Delaware. Ms. Williams informed the group of all the jurisdictions included in the AI. Ms. Williams gave a brief overview of the task of the AI and stated the report is over 600 pages for the State and why it was a 9 month extensive process which is the standard process for Mullen and Lonergan to complete a Regional AI.

A review of public policies was presented to the group and a list of documents was requested from each entitlement that need to be reviewed when you are undertaking this process in a very comprehensive manner.

“Affirmatively furthering fair housing choice” that’s the foundation for the Analysis of Impediments. All entitlements that receive grant funds must sign a certification that they will affirmatively further fair housing choice in their community which is signed by the elected official for each jurisdiction, and a condition for receiving federal funds. What is meant by affirmatively furthering fair housing is to bend over backwards to do something that would not ordinarily otherwise be done. You have to go out of your way as a jurisdiction to get it done. It’s more than just refraining from discrimination. You affirmatively further fair housing choice where it does not exist.


July 2011 Page 595

Ms. Williams stated she attended the National Fair Housing Conference last year where there was a session she attended where two local activists summed up the way entitlement communities should invest their entitlement funds in their communities and the fair housing filters that need to be in place in your community. One activist stated, “I want you to improve my neighborhood so people want to move there.” The other activist stated, “I want a choice to live outside of my neighborhood where affordable housing choices are created with safer neighborhoods and better schools.” Those statements are the key to the Analysis of Impediments and Fair Housing Choice. It’s how an entitlement community balances those two opposing ideas.

Dissimilarity Indices in Delaware are included in the AI because it is requested by HUD and is used as a benchmark to the indices in the State and to see the progress made from census data after a 10 year period in de-concentrating areas of minorities and low income persons.

Ms. Williams stated there are contextual observations in all four jurisdictions. There were also impediments identified as barriers to fair housing choice. Each jurisdiction will need to implement a fair housing plan to eliminate the barriers to fair housing choice. A regional fair housing plan will also need to be implemented statewide to eliminate the impediments that were identified throughout the state. Ms. Williams gave a brief overview of those impediments that were identified for all four jurisdictions.

Ms. Williams gave a brief interview for recommendations for the Fair Housing Action Plan for the City of Wilmington.

Scott Kidner, C.S. Kidner Associates/Capital Strategies, asked for clarification for the recommendation to require landlords to attend fair housing training. Ms. Williams replied that she would address that question after she finished discussing question number one regarding the Fair Housing Action Plan for the City of Wilmington.

Ms. Williams stated there is a rental property licensing program in the City of Wilmington that should require landlords as part of the registration licensing program, to attend fair housing training annually as part of the licensing requirement so that any one that participates that offers their housing units for rental, are fully aware of the federal and state fair housing laws.

Mr. Kidner asked where do you get the training?

Ms. Williams replied there are organizations throughout the State that provide the training.

Mr. Kidner asked if the training was free?

Ms. Williams replied yes.

Vincent Petroff, Delaware Division of Human Relations replied their organization provides free training.

Gladys Spikes, Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware stated their organization also provides fair housing training. There would not be a cost for the training for the landlords.

Ms. Williams gave a brief overview for the recommendations for the Fair Housing Plan for the City of Dover.


July 2011 Page 596

The first action is for the city to increase the supply of affordable rental housing for families in non-concentrated areas of the city and to create inclusionary housing provisions where affordable housing is included in a developer’s project and a certain percentage of affordable housing should be made available for persons who are 80% below the area median income.

Ms. Williams gave a brief overview for the Fair Housing Plan for New Castle County.

Ms. Williams stated there are more opportunities outside the City of Wilmington to expand fair housing choice. She stated that the county should take a more proactive choice to identify sites for multi-family housing projects and give priorities to those locations. She also stated that units of local government that receive CDBG and Home funds understand their obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing based on the recent law suit against Westchester County in which she described how Westchester County failed to do so.

Ms Williams gave a brief overview for the fair housing plan for Delaware State Housing Authority which included recommendations for Kent and Sussex counties and included the same recommendations from the other jurisdictions.

In addition to the individual action plans for the jurisdictions, recommendations were made for a regional fair housing plan for the state which she gave a brief overview.

Ms Williams opened up the floor for questions and comments.

Mr. Reynolds commented before comments and questions were taken from the audience that the analysis made by the consultants were recommended actions and that some were pretty provocative, and if initiated , they would remove some of the impediments. They are going to be difficult to get there, but a lack of effort is failure and I don’t think any of us are there. Because it’s in the report as recommendations, there are ways that we can remove the impediments. The federal government will be providing written guidance / regulations on how to do so.

Ann Marie Townshend, City of Dover asked how binding are the strategies by a municipality adopting this? Ms. Townshend stated that she didn’t see some of the strategies happening politically. Should we take out certain strategies? Or, do you provide a strategy that is a little more open ended that would provide some incentive for fair housing or by making landlords aware of fair housing training based on the recommendation in the analysis that requires landlords to attend fair housing training? I have concerns about signing off on something that I know won’t probably ever go through, and where does that leave us?

Ms. Williams replied when the judge made the decision in the Westchester County case, cost was not an issue. It’s costing Westchester County $60 million dollars of its own money to build 750 affordable housing units. When this document is completed, there is a signature page at the end of each jurisdiction’s section where the elected official is required to sign the document. The way these strategies are to be implemented is through the city and the state’s annual Action Plan. HUD is going to look at this Fair Housing Action Plan to see how these recommendations and strategies are going to be implemented. When you complete your next annual Action Plan, you will need to pick out which of the strategies that need to be implemented for that year. HUD will want to


July 2011 Page 597

see; this is what we are going to do and this is the degree in which we are going to do it. HUD is going to expect that you report these strategies in your CAPERS.

Ms. Townshend asked if we know that it is not feasible to do something that is listed as a strategy, should we look at replacing it with something else? I don’t think that it is saying that we are not committed to affirmatively furthering fair housing if it is determined that we cannot do the landlord training requirement at this point in time.

Ms. Williams replied it comes down to how much fair housing insurance do you want for your community? There is a hyper level of vigilance in fair housing with HUD right now, which has spilled over to the Department of justice. The AI with proactive strategies to eliminate the impediments for your community is fine because you’re basically buying fair housing insurance for your community. It’s not really a matter of choice because you are accepting funds to affirmatively further fair housing.

Ms. Townshend replied that if some of the strategies are met and one strategy is not met does not mean that the city did not affirmatively further fair housing. Ms. Townshend stated that the costs listed in the recommendations were zero for some of the recommendations, and that is not the case.

Ms. Williams replied that for some of the outreach and training recommendations, a collaborative effort should be made regionally where training would be made available throughout the state and the jurisdictions pool their money together.

Mr. Reynolds replied that it’s unfair to say for clarity purposes there’s a difference of not getting it done and reporting efforts that we put in to getting it done. If all the jurisdictions collaborate to develop a plan for training, we have moved to affirmatively further fair housing. If we are in the process of developing strategies that does not mean that we have failed.

Ms. Williams replied it doesn’t mean that you failed, but in your Fair Housing Action Plan, there is a timeline that you have to commit to. If you commit to action steps for a fiscal year, those strategies will need to appear in your annual plan. If you need additional time to complete a strategy, than take it. Don’t eliminate the recommendations, think of a way to implement them.

Ms. Townshend replied in order for our mayor to sign off, we are going to have to go through a council process. If council wants to change some of the strategies, what’s the ability to do that?

Mr. Fulmer replied if you administer the CDBG or HOME program, HUD is looking for these communities to accept their responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing. Your obligation as a grantee is to identify impediments and find ways to eliminate them. If you chose not to take action on those impediments identified, then you do so at your own peril. If elected officials do not want to sign off on the AI, then you will be on a collision course with HUD.

Ms. Townshend replied what if they don’t like one of the recommendations, but have another recommendation? I guess my concern is that the strategies that are put forth in this document is the only way to do it.

Mr. Petroff stated one of the issues coming up with the Fair Housing Task Force is to be looking at the overall impediments. Their agency offers as a resource to provide fair


July 2011 Page 598

housing training and outreach. We are able and willing to collaborate with the jurisdictions to set up fair housing training that is free of charge. It shows that we are taking a proactive approach.

Anas Ben Addi, Delaware State Housing Authority asked have you looked at the value of de-concentration versus having some of these projects and sites where there is already infrastructure for transportation, jobs, shopping? If you don’t know, the whole state from Kent to Sussex counties is rural. What is the value living outside the census tract verses having someone walk 3 to 4 miles to the nearest shopping center?

Ms. Williams replied the same question arose at the Fair Housing meeting where that point was brought up, and it was stated that it was an excuse, because that’s an assumption that all poor people do not have a cars. There are some low income persons that do not have cars and some that do, but to some degree if that is your only reason for not trying to expand outside of concentrated areas, her caution was that HUD considers that an excuse and not a reason.

Mr. Ben Addi replied there are a lot of areas that are rural in Sussex County where there is public housing; this comes from experience based on our vacancy rate for affordable housing that is not close to transportation.

Ms. Williams replied each jurisdiction has to make that balance of reinvesting in areas that are in need of redevelopment and revitalization as well as creating fair housing choice outside of those areas for those persons who choose to live outside of those areas.

Theresa Garcia, Realtor commented that there are some low income housing mortgage programs out there now with a 100% financing and 100% self-help, so we do have some incentives for low income persons particularly outside of impacted areas. I take exception to group homes being placed in single family neighborhoods as a mother, grandmother and a realtor. This brings down our property values and threatens the safety of our children.

Ms. Williams replied group homes are specifically protected under the fair housing act. Accordingly, it is those persons with disabilities; mentally ill, physically disabled and recovering from substance abuse. Group homes must be treated the same way as single family homes.

Vincent White, Provost Realty commented that there was reference made to landlords needing fair housing training but not realtors. Right now, real estate professionals are the gate keepers to our housing. Right now, real estate professionals get 15 hours of community education. At the present time, we are not required to have fair housing training. Pre licensing training requires 99 hours and less than 2 hours is discussed for fair housing in that training. Fair housing training should be a requirement for all real estate professionals.

Mary Ellen Gray, Kent County asked how do you reconcile if you’re a rural county and try to eliminate the impediment for de-concentration when you just service a rural area?

Ms. Williams replied that you would not impede those who want to develop housing in the county. If it has to go through a variance or re- zoning process, that should be a top priority for the county. The county should bend over backwards to make that happen since it’s an affordable housing project.


July 2011 Page 599

Ms. Townshend asked if you could provide a definition for a group home that would identify the group home without casting the net so broadly that we end up with boarding houses.

Ms. Williams replied if you define it as a residential single family setting for persons with disabilities as defined by the fair housing act, that should be in compliance.

Brandy Bennett Sussex County asked why should affordable housing projects be given special preference and how do we make sure the special treatment does not go above and beyond?

Ms. Williams replied what I mean when I say special treatment is because there is a high demand of affordable housing in Delaware that when those projects come through the door, that’s when you should try to assist them through the process.

Ms. Bennett stated that the planning and zoning board does not go through the inclusionary zoning process for affordable housing projects, they are not going to follow through to make sure that the houses provide affordability through a qualifying process.

Ms. Williams replied the selection of the people who purchase those homes should be coming through whatever department runs community development activities that can qualify them, or you can work with another agency that does. The selection of families should be coming through the community development agency of the county.

Mr. Reynolds announced because of the time constraints of the meeting room, we will need to close the meeting. Written comments will be accepted until June 3rd, and comments will be accepted by any jurisdiction. All comments are suggested to be in writing rather than a phone call for a better interpretation. Once the final document is completed, we will have a roll out meeting with all the jurisdictions. If there are not any other comments, the meeting is adjourned.

Meeting was adjourned at 2:42 pm.


July 2011 Page 600

12. APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

Comment #1:

All I have to add re: the AI (New Horizons section) is: p. 465 - last paragraph of F. I. 2) - the report reads "... the Cooperative and DSCLT secured a verbal option to purchase..." This is not accurate. We have a purchase agreement secured by a down-payment deposit.

Comment #2:

I recommend that the AI draft be amended to require any duly licensed real estate professional be required to complete three hours of fair housing every other year. In addition, I recommend that any real estate licensee, non-profit employee(s) and/or housing counselor, mortgage originator who chooses to participates in CDBG, NSP, Home-funded, HDF and/or DSHA mortgage activity be required to certify their completion of fair housing training, prior to their participation.

Comment #3:

Can you tell me who the gentleman there was from Delaware Association of Realtors? He called me out on my comment about group homes and it is a zoning issue, not a fair housing issue at this time. I'm glad I went to this meeting. My take is that someone is trying to create a problem to fit a solution. As a Realtor, I help many minority first time home buyers purchase homes with RHP and DSHA money. I do not discriminate nor do I know of any others in Dover who do. We are all very happy for any business we get and to us green money is green money. If you can afford a home, we are very happy to sell you a home with the best first time buyer programs available and in any neighborhood you can afford. I personally feel that the programs that HUD offers in Delaware is some of the best and goes a long way to helping those who can handle the credit affordable housing. My concerns is that this is another example of big government giving away tax payer money with lots of strings attached that us tax payers have to pay. And that does not make me a racist, or against fair housing, only a concerned citizen who pays her fair share of taxes.

Comment #4:

I am a native of the State of Delaware and am a resident of Smyrna. I have always been very proud of my State, until I learned that some parts of my state do not take their disabled community into consideration, as it implies to allowing businesses to operate in their towns and cities without ensuring that these places of public accommodation meet the ADA laws.


July 2011 Page 601

I am a disabled person and have been since I was 11. Over the years I have had to use lots of different types of aids to help me walk. And have found it to be quite difficult to enter places. I have learned over the years, just how difficult it can be to get anything done, as it implies to the State of Delaware, when no one in those state positions even knows what going on as far as ADA laws.

About 11 years ago I got a dog to train as my service dog, knowing I was going to need help later in life. I have trained my dog to pull a cart, when pushing a heavy load is too much for me, brace me, when I need help getting up, carry things for me when I cannot.

I was shocked at how much difficulty I ran into, as it implies to businesses, If it wasn't the entrance to the business, it was the way I got treated when I walked in with my service dog. So, over the last 11 or so years I have studied the laws, and have learned that the ADA laws are not being enforced, as there are many new places of business, operating right here in my own town of Smyrna, for example, Waffle house, Wawa, Wilmington trust bank, WSFS bank, Dollar General...etc, that many of us with mobility issues, do not have access to.

I could take you around my Town of Smyrna and show you all the new construction that does not comply with the law, as it implies to business. I can take you around my town and show you how people who have service dogs are treated, as it implies to business and residences.

I myself have been involved in an ongoing dispute for the past ten years with _____ (intentionally left blank as to not identify the person commenting), over my service dog. And over the years have gotten lease violations when I was clearly within my rights as a disabled person.

If all these laws are in place for the benefit of disabled people, then why do I and so many others still receive so much hassle when we bring our service dogs with us, and why haven't businesses replaced their entrances so we can get inside without embarrassment, of having to wait for someone to come along and open the door.

THIS IS THE STATE OF DELAWARE, AND AS THE FIRST STATE WE SHOULD LEAD BY EXAMPLE. And what about all our brave women and men of the armed forces who fought for us and lost a limb or received head trauma, how fair is it to them!

The ADA laws need to be enforced, so we the disabled have the same independence as a non-disabled person.

We all want our independence as we get older. Disabled or not.

delaware statewide analysis of impediments to …...delaware state analysis of impediments to fair...

Documents