Home » NEWS » Economic Development » HUD’s racism charge could nudge Ridgeland into settling housing bias issues
Sunchase Apartments in Ridgeland

HUD’s racism charge could nudge Ridgeland into settling housing bias issues

By TED CARTER

Ridgeland can put health and public safety atop its list of reasons to rid the city of a great number of its multi-family housing units. But then it must justify the dislocation of large numbers of low-and-moderate-income residents, many of whom are black and Hispanic.

That justification is probably out of reach, according to Ed Sullivan, who practiced land-use law for 45 years and until recently was a member of the American Planning Association’s Legislative and Policy Committee.

Ridgeland’s 2014 zoning law prohibiting the current building densities of at least 15 apartment complexes has “overtures of class and race,” said Sullivan, who recently retired from law practice in Portland, Ore., and now teaches land-use law there.

“I think that is where the city will get into trouble,” he added.

The shape of that trouble came into much closer focus in early December with notice from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, that it believes Ridgeland officials are engaged in “unlawful discrimination based on race.”

» READ MORE: National Apartment Association rep sees image problem for Ridgeland

Ridgeland officials, as well as their outside legal counsel, have been silent on the series of state and federal lawsuits their zoning mandates have brought.

Before the lawsuits, however, city officials said health and public safety issues involving the apartments put an unjustified burden on the city’s budget.

They also have declined public comment on HUD’s housing discrimination complaint detailing what the agency says is a long-held goal of Ridgeland to transform southeast Ridgeland into an enclave of single-family homes by getting rid of the apartments predominantly occupied by African-Americans and making up the bulk of that part of the city’s housing stock.

It is significant that HUD is making the same claims made in a trio of pending federal Fair Housing Act lawsuits against Ridgeland, Sullivan said.

And should HUD move against Ridgeland, its task has been made much easier by a summer 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found in a Texas case that federal fair housing investigators need not show a governmental entity intended to discriminate. It need only show the entity’s action resulted in a “disparate impact” against protected minorities.

“If they can show this has a disparate impact on Americans, the city is in trouble,” Sullivan said of the federal suits.

The Ridgeland litigation “is not the first kind of case like it, but it may set some precedent if it goes into litigation,” he said.

He added he has a fairly good sense of how the legal fight will end. “I think the city will lose,” he said.

Citing public health and safety won’t be enough to prevail, he said. “They’d have to show there is some sort of danger out there.”

In the face of defeat, Sullivan said, city officials most likely would agree to a mediation to which HUD and lawyers for the apartment complexes will be parties.

John Jopling, housing law director for the Mississippi Center for Justice, shares Sullivan’s expectation for mediation. “HUD is going to lean on them for some type of mediation,” Jopling said of Ridgeland.

“HUD has a history of favoring mediated outcomes.”

He said he nonetheless is monitoring developments on Ridgeland housing policies on behalf of its apartment residents. “Nobody is representing the tenants,” Jopling said. “They have an independent cause of action if they want to pursue it. We are looking at that mindfully.”

Jackson lawyer Lawton Hester, who has filed a federal fair housing discrimination suit against Ridgeland on behalf of Bay Meadows Apartments, said he thinks mediation or some sort of government reconciliation “is very possible.”

Hester said he does not think the dozen zoning-related lawsuits against HUD will be stalled by the HUD action. It is more likely, he said, that the HUD actions will bring a resolution to those actions.

The federal agency has already begun running a 100-day clock on its investigation and can be expected to put the whole matter on a fast track, said Hester, a member of Wyatt Tarrant & Combs who practices a mix of public entity and civil litigation.

“It will move much faster than the private litigation,” he predicted.

Hester suspects HUD’s mention in its complaint that Ridgeland had received around $5 million in federal money in 2014 was “a shot across the bow” and served to remind city officials federal grants could be at risk, as well as the city’s general fund should financial penalties be assessed.

HUD’s legal firepower, which includes the full force of the Department of Justice, is a lot for a small Mississippi city to go up against, Hester noted. “The government has an awful lot of power to investigate and litigate these things.”

Hester’s involvement began in 2012, a period in which Ridgeland was using code enforcement to try to shut down apartment complexes and had not yet settled on zoning as a strategy.

Even after his long involvement, Hester said he is astonished that the issue has reached such a tipping point and led HUD to make “institutional racism” central to its complaint. “I have been in litigation 30 years and have never seen anything like it,” he said. “I still continue to be amazed.”

BEFORE YOU GO…

… we’d like to ask for your support. More people are reading the Mississippi Business Journal than ever before, but advertising revenues for all conventional media are falling fast. Unlike many, we do not use a pay wall, because we want to continue providing Mississippi’s most comprehensive business news each and every day. But that takes time, money and hard work. We do it because it is important to us … and equally important to you, if you value the flow of trustworthy news and information which have always kept America strong and free for more than 200 years.

If those who read our content will help fund it, we can continue to bring you the very best in news and information. Please consider joining us as a valued member, or if you prefer, make a one-time contribution.

Click for more info

About Ted Carter

2 comments

  1. The city’s action is classic exclusionary zoning as well as a blatant violation of the nation’s Fair Housing Act. As a professional planner and zoning/fair housing attorney I can categorically state that there is nothing in accepted planning practice or theory that would justify Ridgeland’s ban on these apartment buildings, absolutely nothing. The headline was a bit misleading. The city is not being charged with “racism.” It’s being charged, correctly so, with violating the nation’s Fair Housing Act as well as engaging in illegal exclusionary zoning. In the 41 years since I first wrote about exclusionary zoning for the American Society of Planning Officials, I have rarely seen any town engage in such blatant housing discrimination and arbitrary and capricious illegal zoning, badly abusing the town’s police powers. Ridgeland is engaging in government overreach of the worst kind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*