How Fair is Fair Housing; G. Leef

by George C. Leef O wning property used to mean that you had the right to do with it as you pleased. You could sell it, rent it, or give it away. You could also refuse to do so. Some people might be disappointed by your decision, but all they could do was to search elsewhere for what they wanted. There was no legal recourse for having been told "No." But now there is. Thanks to federal and state "housing discrimination" statutes, wouldbe purchasers and renters can collect damages if they can show that the owner "discriminated" against them, which means they were told "no" without what the govern ment regards as a good enough reason. The government now casts a long and ominous shadow over the housing market. It is one more slash in the death of a thousand cuts being administered to property rights in America. Just ask John Roffius. Hoffius owns several apartments in Jack son, Michigan. He was approached by an unmarried couple who wanted to rent one of his units. Re declined to do so on religious grounds, stating that he believed it was wrong for a couple to live together out of wedlock.

He couldn't stop them from cohabiting, but he could prevent them from doing so on his property. So he thought. The couple filed suit, seeking damages of $10,000 each. Of course, they were not really harmed. John Roffius took nothing of theirs. Mr. Leef is president of Patrick Henry Associates, East Lansing, Michigan, and the director of FEE's Freeman Society discussion clubs. He also serves as book review editor of The Freeman. Their only damage was having devoted a small amount of time to applying for his apartment. Nevertheless, the misnamed American Civil Liberties Union and a bevy of "fair housing" groups joined in. So far, two courts have ruled in favor of Hoffius, but the case is now on appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. Even if he ulti mately prevails, he will have lost, since de fending the suit has cost him thousands of unrecoverable dollars. (The law allows the plaintiff to recover attorneys' fees if he wins, but not the defendant.) But Hoffius has been fortunate. In California, Evelyn Smith lost a similar case when the California Supreme Court decided that forcing landlords to rent to unmarried couples did not put a "substantial burden" on landlords' religious freedom.

Many housing "discrimination" cases are brought (or threatened) each year. Often, they are instigated by organizations like the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit (FHCMD). The budget for FHCMD comes largely from the federal government, aug mented by some private donations. It adver tises for individuals who have "suffered dis crimination" and, after learning about their experiences, usually sends in "testers." If "discrimination" is found, then an FHCMD attorney contacts the owner to say that they will file suit unless the owner settles. In the case of Darby v. Heather Ridge Apartments, the plaintiffs alleged racial dis crimination. The Darbys, a black couple, sought to rent an apartment, but were in formed that no units would be available for more than a month. However, white appli673 674 THE FREEMAN • NOVEMBER 1997 cants were told that there were units imme diately available. The plaintiffs sued and won $450,000 in damages.

Racial discrimination like this is both im moral and irrational. However, just because an act is immoral and irrational doesn't mean anyone has been directly harmed (in con trast to more nebulous emotional hurt). Except for the loss of some time, the Darbys were no worse off than if they had never stopped at Heather Ridge. But they hit the jackpot with a jury that "wanted to send a message." Lawsuits Abound That the law is simply viewed as a tool for enrichment is evident from Lawson v. Paragon Properties, in which a black couple applied for apartments at two different complexes. Within days, they had been accepted at one, but the other took three weeks to reject their application. Rather than simply move in where they'd been accepted, the Lawsons filed suit against the other complex and wound up with an award of $17,500.In cases like this, the lawseduces people into needless, wasteful litigation.

Another fount of lawsuits is the legal ob ligation not to discriminate against people who have "disabilities" and need "accommo dation" in housing. In Herzberg v. Plymouth Heritage Apartments, Cindy Herzberg sought to rent an apartment. But she needed an access ramp to the unit for her wheelchair. The owner said Ms. Herzberg would have to pay for the ramp, which would cost some $1,700. Herzberg cried "discrimination!" and the case wound up before a mediation panel that decided it was unreasonable of the owner not to want to spend $1,700 in constructing the ramp. The mediators tacked on an extra $10,000 in damages to teach the owner to be more sensitive. Sometimes advertising provides the excuse to sue. In 1996, FHCMD won an arbitration award of $569,000 against the owners of Henry Ford Village in Dearborn. For more than two years, FHCMD had monitored the advertising of the Village. Among hundreds of ads, only one showed any nonwhite people.

There was no evidence the complex treated whites and blacks differently, only that its advertising seemed to convey a preference for whites. The arbitrator ordered the company to shell out $469,000over the next three years to hire a "manager of affirmative marketing," retain a consulting firm to help devise an "affirmative marketing plan," include an "Equal Housing" logo in all advertising, and pay FHCMD $100,000. One can have sympathyfor the objectives of groups like FHCMD even while· abhorring their methods. Housing discrimination is of fensive, but it is a rare phenomenon simply because it usually proves costly to the one practicing it. If a landlord has a vacant apart ment and turns away decent, paying tenants because of something he doesn't like about them, he loses revenue. There are nearly always others in the marketplace who are happy to rent to those who were rejected. "Fair housing" centers would perform a more valuable service if they assisted people who encountered discrimination to bypass it, by finding places where they would likely be accepted.

Unfortunately, however, discrimination suits hold out the prospect of great windfalls for plaintiffs, attorneys, and "fair housing" centers. Why do something peaceful but not very profitable when you can use the law to shake down property owners? Persuasion, Not Force Housing activists might respond that only the threat of lawsuits will change attitudes. Possibly so, although persuasion and positive incentives are usually more effective than force. In any case, an important part of freedom is tolerating those who do not share our values and beliefs. People have no more a right to use force to make people have the "right" attitude toward prospective tenants than to make people have the "right" attitude toward the Social Security System, opera, or immigration. Instead, those committed to "fair housing" should use noncoercive means to accomplish their ends. If, for example, they have evidence that a landlord discriminates in ways they deem to be inappropriate, they could publi cize this fact and organize a boycott. But doing so requires persuading other people to coop erate with you, and that is more difficult than convincing a few jurors to indulge in vicarious generosity. Moreover, those adamantly op posed to any kind of housing discrimination could cooperate to buy "bad" landlords out of not only their property, but the business entirely. If activists aren't willing to put up their own money to achieve their objective, HOW FAIR IS "FAIR HOUSING"? 675 why should they be allowed to take the easy route of a lawsuit?

Like so many other pieces of statist legis lation, the "fair housing" laws are misnamed. There is nothing fair about coercing people who have simply decided to contract in ways that some other people find objectionable. If all "fair housing" statutes were repealed, then housing activists would have to use their own time and money to assist those for whom they express so much concern. 0 A THE LINK HOMESCHOOL new s p a p_e_, _ Vol. 3, Issue 1 A national publication - Circulation: 10,000 Receive A Free Copy The Link is an eclectic homeschooling information newspaper featuring writers such as John Taylor Gatto, David & Micn Colfax and homeschooling parents. It is a full resource place for all homeschoolers, regardless of life philosophyor religion. To receive a free copy write to this addressand mention the Freeman: The Link 587 N. Ventu ParkRoad, S\JiteF-911, Newbury Park, CA 91320. Coming June, 1998 The Link's 2nd Annual "kid comfortable"

Homeschool Conferencein Southern California! Featured will be such great speaker/thinkers as John Taylor Gatto, Sam Blumenfeld, David & Mien Colfax, Pat & Day Farenga, Richard "Little Bear" Wheeler, Visual Manna '$ Art Workshop & much more. Families with children are welcomedto the beautiful campus of Cal Lutheran Univ., making this a great "getaway" for the entire family. Watch for more speaker information and registration forms in future issues ofThe Link. The Link - INDEX - Vol. 3, Issue 1 Schoolteacher's Intuition by John Taylor Gatto Page 4 lorial Page by MaryLeppert Page 5 TIre Link Reviews by TIre LinkStiff Page 6 81VelousMath by Alice Rohan Page 7 ccreditationof ISPs by Jackie Orsi Page 8 omeschool Climate Change byMarilynMosley Page 10 eighin' In (LegalNews &. Sundry) Page 12 GreatDocument Series Page 14 oreign Language by Donna Fatur08 Page 17 . With VISUQ/Manna by SharonJdJus Page 20 nnon~ Room· APlace for Kids byLennonLeppert Page2S Sound Words &. Others by Gary Grammar Page 27 iIIermiumMoments by Arielle Gorin Page 28 e Colfax Comer byThe Colfaxes Page 33 THEFREEMAN . IDEAS ON LIBERTY Technologyand the WorkForce: WorkWill Not End by Donald K. Jonas I n his recent provocative book The End of Work, Jeremy Rifkin joins a growingchorus of social pessimists who argue that advanced technology leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of "the elites" followed by wholesale unemployment for the masses.