(Download)
July 3, 2025
Scott Knittle
Principal Deputy General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Rules Docket Clerk
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 Seventh Street, SW
Room 10276
Washington, DC. 20410-0001
RE: [Docket No. FR–6533–P–01] – Rescission of Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Regulations
Dear Principal Deputy General Counsel Knittle:
The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) writes this letter to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing (AFHM) rules.[1] NCRC and its grassroots member organizations create opportunities for people to build wealth and participate more fully in the nation’s economy. NCRC is a network of more than 700 community-based organizations dedicated to creating a nation that not only promises but delivers opportunities for all Americans to build wealth and attain a high quality of life. We work with community leaders and policymakers to advance solutions and build the will to solve America’s persistent racial and socio-economic wealth, income, and opportunity divides, and to make a Just Economy a national priority and a local reality.
We believe the AFHM rules are essential to ensuring equitable access to housing and fulfilling the promise of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and other civil rights laws. Rather than weakening these rules, HUD must preserve and strengthen them. HUD developed the AFHM rules to fulfill the Department’s statutory obligations under the Fair Housing Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Executive Order 11063.[2] The AFHM regulations require owners seeking to participate in Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance or Office of Multifamily Housing rental assistance programs to adopt affirmative fair housing marketing policies to promote fair housing choice and preventing the perpetuation of segregation.[3] If finalized, the proposed rescission would not only set back the cause of civil rights but also threaten a broader range of racial equity policies that are informed by the analysis of demographic data.
Before 1968, the U.S. government enforced explicitly racist policies to establish and entrench racial segregation in housing and to disinvest from communities of color.[4] Through the Fair Housing Act and regulations like the AFHM rules, Congress and HUD not only intended to end de jure segregation, but also to remedy its continuing effects by obligating the federal government to take affirmative steps to ensure that federally subsidized housing would not reproduce the discriminatory patterns of the past.[5]
The Fair Housing Act requires HUD and recipients of federal funds from HUD to administer their programs and activities in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).[6] One way that HUD has implemented its obligation to AFFH is through the AFHM rules, which seek to address disparities in exposure to and information about housing options.[7] The rule is simple in that it requires owners of federally-assisted housing to plan their marketing strategies in ways designed to proactively reach communities that have been historically excluded from the neighborhoods in which the housing is located.[8] These longstanding AFHM rules uphold a vision of anti-discrimination by ensuring that federally-assisted housing is marketed in a way that reaches all eligible persons, regardless of race, national origin, or other protected characteristics.
Contrary to misconceptions, the AFHM rule does not allocate assisted housing units on the basis of race. Rather, the AFHM requirements of targeted marketing outreach are considered a strategy that is race-neutral but informed by an analysis of racial demographic data, and courts have consistently held that the Fair Housing Act and similar requirements are consistent with the formal requirements of the Supreme Court’s current equal protection jurisprudence.[9]
Today, the urgency of protecting and strengthening this rule is even greater. The housing crisis in America is deepening, and the number of affordable rental units is woefully insufficient. As the supply of affordable housing continues to decline, the number of rent-burdened households is at an all-time high, including over 12 million families that spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs.[10] This causes appalling levels of housing insecurity and evictions, which disproportionately affect Black households and other households of color.[11]
Limited affordability has also caused the displacement of many Americans, with Black households bearing the brunt of this displacement.[12] According to a May 2025 NCRC report, gentrification has had dire consequences for Black residents of several major cities, resulting in their displacement between 1980 and 2020.[13] These cities include Washington, D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, and Atlanta.[14] Between 1980 and 2020, gentrification caused the displacement of 61,000 Black Washington, D.C. residents.[15] When we come together to fund housing to address these unmet needs, it is essential that the HUD-assisted properties that result are available to all eligible households on a fair and equitable basis.
In the decades since the Fair Housing Act, HUD’s efforts to redress the harm done by segregating and divesting from communities of color have fallen far short of what is needed. A 2021 publication found that 81% of American metropolitan regions studied were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990.[16] Moreover, the national Black homeownership rate is almost as low as it was before the enactment of the Fair Housing Act.[17] In 1960, the Black homeownership rate was 38%.[18] In 2023, the Black homeownership rate was only about 44.7%.[19] This statistic is particularly disturbing because, before the Act’s enactment, housing discrimination based on race was legal.[20] For example, in Washington, D.C., Black residents have rapidly lost access to homeownership between 2010 and 2020. In the nation’s capital, the Black homeownership rate decreased from 43.6% in 2010 to 35% in 2020 — a decrease of almost 10 percentage points.[21] The AFHM rule is one of the foundational affirmative tools available to HUD to address these persistent inequities. It provides a straightforward framework for property owners to take simple but meaningful steps to ensure that federally assisted housing is inclusive and fair. Rescinding this rule would signal an unacceptable retreat from HUD’s obligations and a dangerous undermining of civil rights protections. As a society, we need HUD to do more to further fair housing, not less.
At a time when housing affordability and racial justice are central concerns in our society, we urge HUD to move in the direction of progress, not retrenchment. The existing AFHM rules are more than a regulatory requirement; they are a manifestation of HUD’s obligation to dismantle discriminatory barriers to housing. Their rescission would represent a significant step backward in our ongoing struggle for racial, economic, and housing justice. We call on HUD to uphold its duty to fair housing by not finalizing the rescission of the AFHM rules.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendation on this important issue. Please contact Nichole Nelson, Senior Policy Advisor, at nnelson@ncrc.org with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jesse Van Tol
President & CEO
National Community Reinvestment Coalition
[1] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Rescission of Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Regulations,” Federal Register, 90, no. 105, (June 3, 2025): 23491-23494, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-06-03/pdf/2025-09991.pdf; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “PART 108—Compliance Procedures for Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing,” Federal Register, 44, no. 55 (August 9, 1979): 47012-47015, https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1979/8/9/47003-47015.pdf#page=11; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Part 200 — Introduction: Subpart M — Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Regulations,” Federal Register, 37, no. 2 (January 5, 1972): 75-77, https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1972/1/5/74-77.pdf#page=2.
[2] U.S. House of Representatives, “Fair Housing Act,” 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter45&edition=prelim and U.S. House of Representatives, “Fair Housing Act,” 42 U.S.C., 3608(e)(5), https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:3608%20edition:prelim); U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, “Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d–1, https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI-Overview; U.S. Department of Labor: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management, “Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973,” 42 U.S.C. § 504, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/section-504-rehabilitation-act-of-1973; and “Executive Order 11063: Equal Opportunity in Housing,” Federal Register, 27, no. 228, (November 24, 1962): 11527-11530, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1962-11-24/pdf/FR-1962-11-24.pdf.
[3] Raso v. Lago (1998), Justia, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/135/11/507542/.
[4] Federal Reserve History, “Redlining,” Federal Reserve History, June 2, 2023, https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/redlining.
[5] 114th Congress, “Interference with Civil Rights,” Congressional Record, February 6, 1968, 2281, https://www.congress.gov/90/crecb/1968/02/06/GPO-CRECB-1968-pt2-6-1.pdf. The purpose of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 — also known as the Fair Housing Act — is to remedy, in Senator Edward Brooke’s words, the “weak intentions” that have led to the federal government, “sanctioning discrimination in housing throughout this Nation.” 114th Congress, “Interference with Civil Rights,” Congressional Record, February 6, 1968, 2526-2528, https://www.congress.gov/90/crecb/1968/02/07/GPO-CRECB-1968-pt2-7-2.pdf. On pages 2526-2528, Senator Brooke described a history of federal fair housing efforts. 114th Congress, “Interference with Civil Rights,” Congressional Record, February 6, 1968, 2524 and 2530. On page 2524, Senator Brooke described the nation’s history of housing discrimination, and the importance of passing the Fair Housing Act. On page 2530, Senator Joseph Tydings stated that fair housing legislation like the Fair Housing Act could correct “the deliberate exclusion from residential neighborhoods on grounds of race.”
[6] U.S. House of Representatives, “Fair Housing Act,” 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–19 and “Part 200 — Introduction: Subpart M — Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Regulations,” Federal Register, 37, no. 2 (January 5, 1972): 75-76, 24 C.F.R. §§ 200.600 – 200.640.
[7] Introduction: Subpart M — Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Regulations,” Federal Register, 37, no. 2 (January 5, 1972): 75, 24 C.F.R. §§ 200.600 and 200.610.
[8] Ibid., 75-76, 24 C.F.R. § 200.620.
[9] Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (2015), Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-1371; Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School (2023), Justia, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/22-1280/22-1280-2023-05-23.html; ??and Blake Emerson, “Affirmatively Furthering Equal Protection: Constitutional Meaning in the Administration of Fair Housing,” Buffalo Law Review, 65, no. 1, (January 2017): 163, 165, and 189, https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4653&context=buffalolawreview.
[10] Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, “America’s Rental Housing 2024,” 2024, 2, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_Housing_2024.pdf.
[11] Nick Graetz, Carl Gershenson, Peter Hepburn, and Matthew Desmond, “Who is Evicted in America,” Eviction Lab, October 3, 2023, https://evictionlab.org/who-is-evicted-in-america/.
[12] Bruce C. Mitchell, Jad Edlebi, Helen C.D. Meier, Jason Richardson, Joseph Dean, and Liang Chan, “Displaced by Design: Fifty Years of Gentrification and Black Cultural Displacement in US Cities,” National Community Reinvestment Coalition, May 2025, https://ncrc.org/displaced-by-design/.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Stephen Menendian, Samir Gambhir, and Arthur Gailes, “The Roots of Structural Racism Project: Twenty-First Century Racial Residential Segregation in the United States,” Othering & Belonging Institute, June 21, 2021, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism.
[17] Laurie Goodman, Jun Zhu, and Rolf Pendall, “Are Gains in Black Homeownership History?” The Urban Institute, February 15, 2017, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/are-gains-black-homeownership-history.
[18] “Reducing the Racial Homeownership Gap,” The Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/housing-finance-policy-center/projects/reducing-racial-homeownership-gap.
[19] United States Census Bureau: American Community Survey, “B25003B: Tenure (Black or African American Alone Householder)” 2023: ACS 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, United States, https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2023.B25003B?q=B25003B:+Tenure+(Black+or+African+American+Alone+Householder).
[20] Laurie Goodman, Jun Zhu, and Rolf Pendall, “Are Gains in Black Homeownership History?” The Urban Institute, February 15, 2017, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/are-gains-black-homeownership-history.
[21] United States Census Bureau, “Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity of Householder,” September 28, 2023, https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/homeownership-by-race-and-ethnicity-of-householder.html. Under “Select a State,” select “District of Columbia.” Under “Select a year,” choose 2020. Repeat these same steps for the year 2010.
