Prejudicial market eyed in housing
WASHINGTON — A major federal study has found that minority renters and homebuyers who test the housing market for discrimination were told about and shown fewer homes and apartments than their equally qualified white counterparts.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development released results of the study in which pairs of testers — one white, one minority — were deployed last year to do more than 8,000 tests across 28 metropolitan areas. Testers were the same gender and age and presented themselves as qualified to rent or buy a unit.
Minorities usually were able to get appointments and see at least one unit.
But study authors say the more subtle discrimination of telling them about and showing fewer units makes housing searches more costly and limits their options.
Blacks, Asians and Hispanics all were given fewer options when seeking a rental. Hispanics looking to purchase a home experienced about equal treatment as whites, but black and Asian homebuyers were discriminated against.
HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said that that the discrimination affects minorities' ability to move to communities with good schools, better safety or more job options.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Only 3 wolves left at national park on Lake Superior; moose population would skyrocket
- Shuster admits to ‘personal relationship’ with airline industry lobbyist
- Social media makes it difficult for ‘hero’ to stay anonymous
- Federal appeals court appears divided on Obama’s immigrant deportation shield
- Collection gives insight into Oklahoma City federal building bomber McVeigh
- Federal judge who blocked Obama immigration order painted as unbiased
- Scientists: Oil spill has harmed health of Gulf of Mexico
- Cardinal Francis George of Chicago dead at 78
- Obama to remove Cuba from terror list, a key point in opening embassies
- Fatalities at submerged dams on rivers spike, Brigham Young University study finds
- Truck carrying 13.7M bees overturns