WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAM

W. P. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT

The filing time shown in the date line on domestic telegrams is STANDARD TIME at point of origin. Time of receipt is STANDARD TIME at point of destination

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC 25 1155A EST 1963 APR 25 PM 12 28

NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING
CARE MAYFLOWER HOTEL WASH DC

THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING WILL, I AM CONFIDENT, PROVIDE AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR HUNDREDS OF THE NATION'S LEADERS REPRESENTING CITY, STATE, LOCAL, AND NATIONAL GROUPS TO DEVELOP, EXCHANGE AND DEBATE VIEWS ON ONE OF COUNTRY'S GREAT PROBLEMS.

THE COMMITTEE AND THE MANY ORGANIZATIONS WHICH COMPRISE IT HAVE BEEN IN THE FOREFRONT IN DIRECTING WIDE ATTENTION TO THE EVILS OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN HOUSING, ONE OF MAN'S BASIC REQUIREMENTS. YOUR PAST VIGOROUS ACTIONS IN ALL ASPECTS OF THIS DIFFICULT PROBLEM PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT YOU CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HELPING ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED LAST NOVEMBER.

I HOPE THAT YOUR CONFERENCE WILL BE PRODUCTIVE AND THAT YOUR VALUABLE EXPERIENCE, CREATIVITY, ENTHUSIASM AND DETERMINATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE CHANNELED INTO PROGRESS TOWARD THE END THAT THERE WILL BE TRUE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL AMERICANS IN SECURING THE BEST POSSIBLE HOUSING FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES.

JOHN F. KENNEDY

## ATTENDANCE AT THE NCDH CONFERENCE

Four hundred citizens from 100 municipalities located in 25 states, with a geographic spread from Los Angeles to Boston and from Miami to Seattle, attended the 1963 NCDH Conference. Included were planners, builders and bankers; religious leaders and educators; housewives and scientists; businessmen and labor representatives; lawyers and government officials; and civil rights experts and supporters.

-i-

"OPENING A NEW FRONTIER"

In 1950, a modest leaflet entitled "Opening a New Frontier" announced that 25 of the country's principal religious, civil rights, labor and civic organizations had affiliated in the formation of a National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing. The committee would carry on a nationwide program of education, information and action aimed at removing racial and religious barriers to shelter.

Thirteen years ago relatively few Americans were stressing the moral, social and economic damages resulting from one-class, one-race, one-color communities. Today the issue of housing segregation is center-stage in the civil rights struggle in the United States. There is now wide recognition that America's separated and torn society is rooted in the segregated neighborhood.

The 37 organizations which now comprise NCDH have played a central role in this beginning of an awakening.

Broad Activities

NCDH is the national clearinghouse for information, counsel and guidance in the housing-civil rights field. Its resources are used by government and private agencies, researchers, writers, lawyers, members of the real estate industry, press, radio, and television, students and private citizens.

All NCDH activities are beamed toward creating strong, sustained citizens' effort to open the housing market: massive distribution of literature; news stories; magazine articles; programs on TV and radio; speeches and conferences; and the issuance of surveys and reports.

- iii -

*Trends in Housing*, the Committee's bimonthly periodical - the only national publication devoted exclusively to this aspect of civil rights - is widely used as a standard resource.

NCDH initiated the movement for an Executive Order banning discrimination in federally-aided housing, and kept the campaign for this action alive and growing for more than ten years. Last November, President Kennedy with his promised "stroke of the pen" issued such an Order - far too limited in scope, but a first step in the right direction.

The NCDH Legal Committee, composed of top constitutional lawyers, provides counsel and guidance to groups throughout the country with regard to nondiscrimination housing legislation and its proper implementation. Within the last five years, twelve states and six cities have enacted fair housing laws which bar discrimination in the private market. Another five states and about 60 cities have taken action affecting discrimination in publicly-aided housing. Annual surveys of the impact being made by the various fair housing laws are conducted and the findings released by NCDH.

NCDH also serves as the principal resource for close to 300 voluntary citizens' groups working for integration in their communities across the country. Most of these local fair housing committees are isolated, except for one thing: some of their members are long-time subscribers to *Trends*, and they regularly get literature from NCDH.

## Progress, But -

The multi-pronged attack on housing segregation, spearheaded for more than a decade by the 37 organizations which form NCDH, is beginning to show results: integrated neighborhoods are on the increase in many sections of the United States. In New York State, for example, a survey five years ago identified only 9 racially-integrated middle and upper-

- iv -

middle income government-aided housing developments. Recently a similar survey identi-
fied 91. In numerous metropolitan areas across the country, countless nonwhite families
have moved into formerly all-white communities, aided by the work of local fair housing
groups and anti-bias legislation.

Hard ground has been spaded these past 13 years, but the seeds of an inclusive society
have yet to take root and become a way of life in our country. The "new frontier" has not
yet been conquered.

The Job Ahead

The demand for freedom and human dignity has become irresistible and urgent in the United States. Frustration with slow action, delay, postponement, and insistence upon "patience" is exploding in every region. Much of the conflict which haunts our time must be resolved where people live - in neighborhoods.

NCDH considers the following action essential and urgent:

* A saturation program of effective community education. The American public must be made aware of the damaging and pervasive effect of housing segregation, of the advantages of diversified communities, and that residential integration is both feasible and inevitable.

* The present Executive Order on housing must be liberally and vigorously enforced.

* The current drive for broadening the reach of the Executive Order must be stepped up.

* Comprehensive fair housing legislation should be enacted by states throughout the nation.

* Techniques for more meaningful enforcement of fair housing laws must be developed and strengthened.

* The local fair housing committee movement must be supported and encouraged to spread into every community.

- v -

* Special programs should concentrate on informing the minority communities of new housing opportunities and stimulating their movement into the mainstream of the housing market.

* Particular effort should be made to develop cooperative relationships with the real estate industry.

The National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing earnestly solicits the support of every thoughtful American in carrying forward this crucial work.

June 30, 1963

- vi -

# I. NCDH PRESS CONFERENCE

On Friday morning, April 26, NCDH held a press conference in Washington at which time a joint statement by four national leaders attacking the slow progress in implementing the Executive Order on housing was released. Joining in the statement were Algernon D. Black, NCDH Board Chairman; James Farmer, National Director, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE); Roy Wilkins, Executive Secretary, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); and Whitney Young, Jr., Executive Director, National Urban League.

The following day, front-pages across the country headlined the NCDH Conference and the charges leveled by the civil rights spokesmen. Television and radio networks gave extensive coverage.

"The Negro community is tired," commented *The New York Post*, "of having the demands of justice tailored to the necessities of getting along with a Congress that is disproportionately dominated by the South. If that is the way it has to be, then the civil rights movement intends to be equally tough. That is the meaning of the outspoken impatience of the housing group."

"It is time for the White House to provide effective leadership," editorialized *The New York Times*.

## Text of the Joint Statement

More than five months have now elapsed since President John F. Kennedy, on November 20, 1962, issued Executive Order No. 11063, entitled "Equal Opportunity in Housing." The signers of this statement shared with millions of Americans a sense of gratification at this first step toward fulfillment of one of the nation's basic moral commitments.

We indicated when it was issued that the Executive Order is far narrower in scope than is required if it is to accomplish its stated goal. Nonetheless, if energetically and imagina-tively implemented, we feel it can aid considerably in modifying the widespread patterns of residential segregation for which past Government policies bear so much of the responsi-bility.

On the record to date, however, we are forced to conclude that neither the broad spirit nor the limited letter of the Order is being made a reality. Among the more critical deficiencies in implementation of the housing mandate are the following:

1. The Order charges the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing with a broad range of responsibilities. It is directed to coordinate and review the activities of the affected Federal agencies; to carry on a broad public educational program; and to recommend general policies and implementation procedures.

Yet, after almost half a year, the committee has not been formally organized. Its chairman-director has been appointed, but the public members have not. Its executive committee, which will be its operating arm, has not been set up. It has developed no staff. It has no budget.

2. Neither the Federal housing agencies nor the President's Committee has undertaken any vital public or internal information and educational programs. The individual American citizen does not know his rights under this directive; the builders, the lenders, and the brokers are not sure what is required of them.

Even with respect to future construction to which the order applies, the rights of the individual have not been made clear. What are his rights to review of a decision which he considers unsatisfactory? Can he appeal to the President's Committee? If so, what procedures must he follow?

In many areas, it is impossible to learn exactly what housing is covered by the order, despite the fact that procedures to make this information available to the public were worked out years ago in New York on a Federal-state cooperative basis.

3. Under the so-called "good offices" section, the Federal agencies are directed "to use their good offices and to take other appropriate action permitted by law, including the institution of appropriate litigation, if required, to promote the abandonment of discriminatory practices" in existing federally-aided housing.

At this point, the "good offices" provision appears to be almost a dead letter. There is no indication that serious exploration of ways in which it might be used effectively is being undertaken. It is disturbing that the first complaint to be filed under the Executive Order was dismissed by FHA, without real review by the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing. This was a case of symbolic significance, involving one of the country's largest builders of housing.

4. During recent years, departments and agencies throughout the Federal establishment have recognized the vital importance of dynamic intergroup relations programs and have given priority to the creation or expansion of services to perform this function. The Federal housing agencies have long had an intergroup relations service -- yet, at its most opportune time in history to make a far-reaching and lasting impact, this service is being under-utilized and is not being used to its full potential.

Twelve years ago, the national organizations with which we are associated played leading roles among the group of religious, civil rights, labor, and civic agencies which initiated the movement for a Presidential order banning discrimination in federally-aided housing. An order has now been issued. It should be put into effect.

Anything which suggests that the Government's interest is less than vigorous will reduce the potential effect of its action.

We respectfully call upon President Kennedy to appoint the public members to the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing without further delay.

We call upon the President's Committee to make immediate staff appointments; to establish an executive committee and put it to work; to review all activities of the Federal agencies affected by the order; and to establish an appeal procedure for cases filed with the individual agencies.

- 2 -

We call upon the Federal agencies involved in housing to embark now upon serious, vigorous, imaginative programs of implementation, encompassing information to the public and the housing industry, as well as education of their own staffs, both in Washington and in the field.

We further call upon the Federal housing agencies to fully involve their intergroup relations service and to use it effectively at the policy-making level.

We call upon the Attorney General's office to move forward on a considered program of litigation under the order.

We call upon the President's Committee to initiate at once a broad national information program, in close cooperation with "civic, educational, religious, industry, labor, and other nongovernmental groups" -- to quote from the order -- so that the general public and the housing industry may be made aware of their rights and their obligations under the terms of this mandate.

The time is long overdue for the Executive Order on Equal Opportunity in Housing to come alive.

/s/ Algernon D. Black, Chairman of the Board
National Committee Against Discrimination
in Housing

/s/ James Farmer, National Director,
Congress of Racial Equality

/s/ Roy Wilkins, Executive Secretary,
National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People

/s/ Whitney M. Young, Jr., Executive Director,
National Urban League

- 3 -

## II. POST-CONFERENCE DEVELOPMENTS

On May 16, the White House announced the appointment of the public members of the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing. (See Appendix B, page 46, for a complete list of the Committee membership.)

The full Committee held its first meeting on May 21. An executive committee has been selected. A staffing program is now underway.

On May 20, FHA instructed all field offices that lists of applications for FHA commitments for apartment projects and for subdivisions of 5 or more individual homes shall be posted daily in the lobby of each office, so that the name, location, and number of units of each proposed project may be easily ascertained by the public. The lists will be cumulative.

Meetings are being held with the Federal housing agencies' top personnel in all HHFA regions. Participating in these are the HHFA Administrator and his key staff members and the Commissioners of the various constituent housing agencies and their top staff.

On June 25, Commissioner William L. Slayton of the Urban Renewal Administration announced that URA had revised its relocation regulations and those involving Community Renewal Programs (CRP's). (Grants for CRP's permit a locality to inventory its total renewal needs and resources and to lay out long-range programs for community-wide improvement. Federal grants cover up to two-thirds of the cost of CRP's.)

URA will now require that CRP's submitted by a locality include: 1) an analysis of the existing pattern of housing occupied by Negroes and other minorities and the extent to which this pattern is the result of discrimination; 2) projection of the housing needs of Negro and other minority families, including those displaced by urban renewal and other public action or newly moving into the community; 3) development of an affirmative program to increase the quantity, improve the quality, and eliminate barriers to housing for Negro and other minority families.

URA's relocation regulations were revised to prohibit the local renewal agency from listing housing for displaced families unless such housing is available on a nondiscriminatory basis.

- 4 -

III. SUMMARY OF THE SESSIONS

A. IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN HOUSING

Background: On Nov. 20, 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11063, entitled "Equal Opportunity in Housing." Under Section 101 of the Order, all Federal agencies involved in housing programs were directed to prevent discrimination in all new housing to be provided with Government aid which was contracted for after the Order was signed. Under Section 102, these agencies were instructed "to use their good offices and to take other appropriate action permitted by law, including the institution of appropriate litigation, if required," to end discrimination in existing federally-aided housing, as well as pre-Order units not yet completed.

The Order provided for the establishment of a President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing, which would have responsibility for coordinating, overseeing and promoting implementation of its provisions. The Committee would be composed of certain specified Cabinet officers, plus such public members as the President might appoint; its Chairman-Director would be a member of the President's executive staff; and major responsibility for carrying forward its work would reside in an executive committee composed of the Chairman-Director and two of the public members. (A digest of the Executive Order will be found under Appendix A, page 45.)

I. GENERAL SESSION, Thursday morning, April 25

Presiding: Algernon D. Black, Chairman of the Board, National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing

FOCUS: After five months, what has the Federal Government done and what does it plan to do to implement the Executive Order?

Government
Spokesmen: David L. Lawrence, Chairman-Director, President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing; Robert C. Weaver, Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency; Joseph P. McMurray, Chairman, Federal Home Loan Bank Board; Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy U.S. Attorney General.

Panel: Charles Abrams, NCDH President; Edward Eichler, Vice President, Eichler Homes, Inc.; Kimball Hill, Vice President, National Association of Home Builders; Reginald A. Johnson, Associate Director for Housing, National Urban League; Joseph B. Robison, Assistant Director, Commission on Law and Social Action, American Jewish Congress, and Chairman, NCDH Legal Committee; Jack E. Wood, Jr., Special Assistant for Housing, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

a) SUMMARIES OF OPENING STATEMENTS

MR. BLACK: This Conference is concerned with one of the most urgent and basic parts of the civil rights struggle in the United States: equal access to shelter. In the battle for freedom and human dignity, neighborliness is the real test. We are dealing with a moral and social dynamic which affects the entire world, and our country must take into account the tempo of change throughout the world.

- 5 -

**GOVERNOR LAWRENCE:** The most challenging assignment facing the President's Committee is the development of a meaningful definition and proper utilization of the "good offices" of the Federal Government to encourage equal opportunity in existing federally-aided housing. The "good offices" provision should be broadly interpreted, should be employed by Government in a unified fashion, and must be augmented by community action.

Now under exploration is a Presidential Memorandum which would direct that an open housing market would be one of the criteria in determining locations for new Federal installations or for the expansion of existing facilities.

Delay in formal organization of the President's Committee was due to the fact that security checks of Presidential appointees take as long as two or three months.

Basic responsibility for processing complaints under the Order rests with the various Federal agencies involved. The President's Committee will, from time to time, review their action, will counsel and advise, and will serve as a watchdog.

The effectiveness of the Order will depend, in large measure, on the work of voluntary groups such as the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing and those attending this Conference.

**DR. WEAVER:** Emphasis to date has been on making policy determinations, development of enforcement procedures and machinery, and informing the public as to the Order's provisions and how they will be implemented.

Enforcement will be a regular agency operation, handled in the same manner as other rules and regulations. A small group in each agency will oversee and review action, and a reporting system is now in operation.

Complaints will be received and processed at the lowest level of operation -- that is, the nearest field office of the appropriate Federal agency. Appeals may be taken to the Commissioner of the agency. Procedures are being worked out for regular exchange of information with the President's Committee.

The "good offices" provision requires extensive research, both from legal and administrative standpoints. Where the Government has a continuing contractual relationship with a builder or a development, considerable "leverage" is available.

The approach under the "good offices" section is one of moral suasion based on national policy. Example: URA recently sent a letter asking voluntary compliance with the Order to the 18 largest redevelopers in the country. As of April 25, ten had agreed and none had declined. URA field offices are taking similar action.

Five complaints had been filed with FHA under the "good offices" section. One of these was successfully adjusted.

Because of the wide variances in fair housing legislation, negotiating cooperation agreements with local and state enforcement agencies will take time. It is being done as rapidly as possible.

The effectiveness of the Order and of Government action will be greatly influenced by
the vigor of voluntary groups which encourage the dispersal of minority-group families.

MR. MCMURRAY: FHA and VA programs have been significant factors in the upsurge of residential housing in the past decade. The Order's provision for the imposition of sanctions for violations will have a sobering impact on builders and lenders. Present energies should be concentrated on ending discrimination in the housing programs included in the Order. The motto for voluntary groups for their future course of action should be "make haste slowly." Restraint and discipline give the individual or the group strength for proper direction of their efforts. "Instead of condemning ignorance or misunderstanding, let us wipe them out by constructive, well-thought-out and patient efforts."

MR. KATZENBACH: Limiting the Order to housing "directly aided" by the Government was a conscious decision. This does not mean that coverage of Federal savings and loan associations, member banks of the Federal Reserve System, and banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would be beyond the Government's power. However, authority to deny membership in the FDIC system to private banks which practice discrimination is less clear than the sanctions provided in the present Order, such as refusal to provide additional aid to an offending builder. Experience developed in implementing the present Order can provide guidance for possible future expansion. This procedure parallels state action in the housing-civil rights field: a step-by-step process.

With respect to litigation, it is essential that the first cases be strong legally. Favorable court decisions are vitally important to establish precedents for subsequent court action.

b) SUMMARY OF PANEL AND FLOOR DISCUSSION

On lending institutions: Mr. Abrams noted that the Order does not cover Federal savings and loan associations. He recalled that prior to issuance of the Order the Federal Home Loan Bank had promulgated a policy statement opposing discriminatory practices by institutions over which it has supervision -- i.e., Federal savings and loan associations. Does, he inquired, this policy still stand? If so, is it legal?

Mr. Katzenbach said the policy is legal. Mr. McMurray said it was known when the policy was issued that it could not be enforced, but it was felt "it would be good to encourage nondiscrimination."

On the Order's limited scope: Mr. Eichler said that the present Order will apply to only 16 per cent of the housing built in California. The effect, he said, is to discriminate against the FHA builder. Was the decision to limit the Order a legal or a policy decision?

Mr. Katzenbach replied that it was a policy -- not a legal -- decision.

**On existing housing:** Mr. Wood noted that under the FHA and VA regulations all sales of owner-occupied one- and two-family homes were excluded. Had HHFA and the President's Committee seriously examined this exemption and the other rules issued by the housing agencies? Dr. Weaver replied that all regulations had gone to the Committee for review. He said that such exclusion -- i.e., owner-occupied homes -- followed the precedent set by state and local fair housing laws.

**On litigation:** Mr. Robison, referring to the Government spokesman's emphasis on the need for "strong" cases, pointed to public housing, eighty per cent of which is segregated. He suggested that the Public Housing Administration or the President's Committee require all local housing authorities to state whether or not they segregate their projects, advising them that such segregation is unconstitutional. If a policy of segregation continues, Mr. Robison said, the Government should immediately institute litigation. (See also *Low-Income Housing*, page 10, and *Litigation*, page 15.)

A Government official reacted favorably to Mr. Robison's position, noting it was based on the assumption that the Government is subject to constitutional requirements when it lends money. He felt the suggestion a good one "when and if litigation is instituted."

**On enforcement procedures:** Mr. Abrams raised questions concerning plans for enforcing the Order's provisions. "Governor Lawrence," he commented, "says complaints will be referred to the housing agencies; Mr. Weaver says they will be referred to the constituent agency; the constituent agency says they will be referred to the local office. Isn't this decentralization irresponsible? Does Governor Lawrence expect to have hearing officers? Does HHFA? Is the decision to be left to the local office of the housing agency?"

Government spokesmen said the various Commissioners will act on reviews and appeals, may have hearings, and will initiate action if they disagree with a decision made in a field office. The role of the President's Committee in connection with appeals was not made clear.

**On the use of "good offices":** Mr. Wood called attention to FHA's failure under the "good offices" provision to open 300 FHA houses which are vacant in the Cocoa-Cape Canaveral area to Negro personnel employed in the nation's space program and in need of housing. Terming the situation an "acid test," he urged that the "good offices" section be interpreted liberally, and that future assistance be denied those builders who discriminate.

Government spokesmen said they were looking into the Cape Canaveral situation, and that the possibility of denying future assistance to discriminatory builders would be considered.

**On agency-staff training:** A builder accustomed to dealing with field staff of the housing agencies said the top people don't do a job of educating their own staff. "Don't kid yourselves -- local staff members don't willingly carry out these directives. Educating your lower echelon staff is one of your main jobs." (See also pages 13 and 15.)

The FHA Commissioner commented that if any FHA field personnel were found thwarting the Executive Order, they would soon be ex-employees.

- 8 -

**On the Intergroup Relations Service:** The question was also asked as to why, at a time when intergroup relations services are expanding throughout the Federal Government establishment, these services are not being expanded and upgraded in the housing agencies.

The response was that a decision had been made to make implementation of the Order a "line" operation -- to make the 14,000 people employed by the Federal housing agencies responsible for carrying out its provisions. The intergroup relations services had not been set aside, but would be used for guidance. (See also pages 11, 13, and 15.)

**On the use of eminent domain:** Mr. Johnson noted that the U. S. Supreme Court had recently declined to hear a case involving the use of eminent domain powers by the Village of Deerfield (III.) to condemn a site on which an integrated housing development was being constructed. He asked how this would affect the Order's impact and how the Order might be applied in such a situation.

Mr. Katzenbach did not think the Order would be affected. He said the case posed a difficult legal question: the town of Deerfield had previously considered the land in question for a park; condemning for parks is a valid use of the power of eminent domain; whatever the motivation, Deerfield took the land for a park.

Mr. Robison suggested that such a position amounted to giving municipalities a "blank check" to use such power to prevent integrated developments. Mr. Katzenbach did not regard such a possibility as a major problem.

**On an educational approach:** Mr. Hill said that for years the NAHB has advocated an educational approach to open the housing market. He pointed out that the mandatory provisions of the Order do not reach the owners of any existing housing. Thus, he said, out of all the component parts of the housing supply the Order's prohibitions are placed upon the builders. He asked Governor Lawrence what programs the Committee plans to counteract existing bias in the general and the home-owning public.

Governor Lawrence said the Committee would rely on political, economic and moral action, but that its strongest approach would be moral and religious. (See Appendix A, page 45.)

### c) COMMENT BY MR. BLACK

As the opening session of the Conference drew to a close, Mr. Black declared:

"No one factor is responsible for the race problem in the United States. It has grown out of compromises with evil, with prejudice, and with vested interests. Every one of us shares responsibility for the pattern of segregation and discrimination which has persisted for over 100 years. The government, real estate boards, bankers, and builders have all played roles in building a pattern of racial zoning and exclusion.

"People in high places, holding the decision-making power, are bedeviled with the difficulties of change. The result is we are weighed down by the past -- slow motion in the midst of revolutionary change throughout the world.

"We do not have time to go slow. If there is 'too little and too late' in the way white people are ready to live on the basis of equality with colored people, there may come a time when we have racial rejection in reverse -- no Negroes willing to integrate with whites.

"We have a responsibility to rouse the conscience of the nation. This is no time for moral vocabulary. It is no time for patience. It is a time for clear, informed and many-pronged attack in the cause of equality -- if we are to survive as a free people."

## 2. WORKSHOPS ON SPECIFIC FEDERAL PROGRAMS, Thursday afternoon, April 25

### a) LOW-INCOME HOUSING

**Background:** The low-rent public housing program started with passage of the United States Housing Act of 1937. A joint Federal-municipal undertaking, the purpose of this program is to provide standard shelter for citizens whose incomes are inadequate to buy or rent decent housing in the private market.

A local public housing authority selects the site, designs, builds, owns, and manages each project. However, the Public Housing Administration's participation gives it considerable supervisory control. Projects are usually financed by municipal bond issues, the rental income then being applied to maintenance and retirement of the bonds. PHA makes direct planning grants to the community, underwrites repayment of the bonds, and provides annual subsidies to the local authority in order to maintain the low-rent structure.

Through 1962, PHA had subsidized approximately 650,000 dwelling units in more than 1,400 communities throughout the country, and 46.7 per cent of the total number of dwelling units were occupied by Negroes. More than 80 per cent of all public housing is racially segregated.

HHFA's Low-Income Demonstration Program, also discussed in this workshop, was established under the 1961 Housing Act for the purpose of developing new or improved means of providing housing for low-income families. It is authorized to make grants to public or private agencies for carrying out pilot projects. At the time of the NCDH Conference, eight such demonstration programs had been approved.

* * * * *

**Workshop Chairman:** Elinor Black, Chairman of the Housing Committee, Women's City Club of New York. **Consultants:** Marie McGuire, Commissioner, Public Housing Administration; George B. Nesbitt, Director, Low-Income Demonstration Program, HHFA; Joseph Burstein, General Counsel, PHA. **Panel:** Edward Marciniak, Executive Director, Chicago Commission on Human Relations; Henry Saltzman, Program Associate, Ford Foundation; William R. Valentine, Director of Intergroup Relations, New York City Housing Authority. **Resource Person:** Philip G. Sadler, Intergroup Relations Specialist, PHA. **Evaluator:** Boris Shishkin, Secretary, Housing Committee, AFL-CIO.

- 10 -

MAJOR POINTS WHICH EMERGED:

**Site Selection.** The choice of a site for a public housing project is a crucial factor in determining the racial composition of its future tenancy. Projects located in or immediately adjacent to areas of minority concentration are generally predestined to become segregated.

Government spokesmen said the Public Housing Administration will use its "good offices" in an effort to influence the local community to select sites where integration will naturally ensue.

The question was raised as to what position the PHA would take if a local authority selects a site and it is known in advance that selection of the particular location will result in a segregated project.

The PHA spokesman said approval or disapproval of the project in such cases would hinge upon whether or not it could be demonstrated that the site was chosen with a clear intent to segregate. He also stated that if a project were built to rehouse displaced persons from an urban renewal area which was wholly Negro occupied, a segregated project would be legitimate because it would be designed to take care of relocatees. Thus, projects which will inevitably perpetuate or extend segregation may be approved.

Government officials stressed the need for involvement of local groups to insure that public housing is built in areas where it is possible to develop an integrated pattern of occupancy.

**Integration of existing projects.** Under the terms of the Executive Order, PHA must require that new projects be operated on a nondiscriminatory basis. PHA, it was proposed, should also require that local authorities institute positive programs to integrate existing public housing. To the extent possible, it was suggested, vacant units occurring from normal turnover should be used for that purpose.

PHA, officials said, will use its "good offices" to encourage local authorities to initiate programs designed to bring about integration in existing projects. It would, however, oppose the holding of units vacant for that purpose.

**Intergroup Relations Service.** Conferees urged that PHA's Intergroup Relations Service be strengthened and upgraded. The response was that budgetary limitations make any expansion unlikely at this time.

**Impact of the Order.** Commissioner McGuire reported that since the Executive Order was issued, PHA had had an increase of applications for public housing projects. The only cancellations of outstanding contracts came from the deep South and these, she said, amounted to four per cent, or about 400 out of 12,000 scheduled units.

- II -

b) FHA AND VA

**Background:** The Federal Housing Administration (since 1934) and the Veterans Administration (since 1944) are the two Federal agencies directly involved in aiding home finance by insuring or guaranteeing mortgages. Under these programs, the lending institution is guaranteed against loss, the builder is benefited by having available a ready market for his product, and the home-buyer reaps the advantage of low down-payment, long-term credit, and lower interest rates. Included in the FHA program are single-family homes, apartment developments, and cooperative housing. The VA program covers single-family homes and farms.

Housing built under these two programs has accounted for the major portion of all non-farm housing built in the United States during the past 20 years. From 1934 through 1961, FHA mortgage insurance had been used to provide some seven million new dwelling units -- single-family homes and apartments. FHA had also insured more than 25 million property improvement loans. From 1944 through 1960, VA had guaranteed mortgages on 5½ million homes and an additional 177,000 had been financed under its direct loan program.

Reliable estimates indicate that less than two per cent of this housing has been available to nonwhite families.

* * * * *

**Workshop Chairman:** Jack T. Conway, Director, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO.
**Consultant:** Philip N. Brownstein, Commissioner, FHA.
**Panel:** George Grier, Staff Associate, Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies; Wilbur L. Lew, Executive Vice President, Friends Suburban Housing, Inc., Philadelphia.
**Resource Person:** Oliver W. Hill, Intergroup Relations Specialist, FHA.
**Evaluator:** Roland M. Sawyer, Housing Consultant, United Steelworkers of America.

MAJOR POINTS WHICH EMERGED:

Uncovered housing. Commissioner Brownstein emphasized that the Order is prospective and that retroactivity must be avoided. Housing in the pipe line when the Order was issued should be constructed and sold by early fall (1963), and housing covered by the Order will be coming on the market at that time.

A builder-conferee pointed out that FHA and VA have broad powers and that use should be made of these in obtaining open occupancy in existing housing. "Your 'good offices' should make use of the leverage you have with a builder who wants new commitments," he said. "In addition, those enforcing FHA's building regulations should be alert to FHA's position on social as well as construction standards, and the two should be tied together in order to influence the sales and rental policies of the builder." (See Litigation, page 16, and Appendix A, page 45.)

Suggestions were made concerning the use of FHA powers to obtain open occupancy in housing developments in which the agency exercises a continuing relationship, such as cooperatives and rental projects built under Section 608. It was pointed out that in the cooperatives it aids FHA must, for example, approve the managing agent, the annual budget, proposed rent increases, expenditures from reserve funds, and changes in by-laws.

- 12 -

The agency exercises similar controls in FHA Section 608 developments and a representative of FHA sits on the board of directors.

Commissioner Brownstein said that FHA's counsel is now examining the legal problems involved to determine what the agency can do in connection with this type of housing.

**FHA and VA repossessed housing.** In FHA alone there are 40,000 repossessed houses available on the open market. Exclusive brokers are no longer used to handle these sales. Lists of the properties are available at the nearest FHA or VA field offices, and persons may buy the properties directly from the agency without going through a broker.

FHA is initiating a new program of financing the purchase of repossessed housing. It will pay reasonable financing charges, there will be no points, and FHA will arrange a loan if there is difficulty in finding a mortgage lender.

At least 100 nonwhite families in various parts of the country have bought FHA-acquired properties since the Order was issued.

**Locating housing covered by the Order.** The difficulty encountered by the public in learning the location of housing covered by the Order was stressed during the discussion. Commissioner Brownstein promised that this information would be made readily available to the public.

**Staff Training.** Conferees emphasized the need for greater attention by FHA and VA to staff training and follow-through. Several persons expressed the opinion that directives from Washington have not taken root, and that a philosophy of segregation still permeates numerous FHA and VA field offices.

**Cooperation with State agencies.** A procedure has been developed for more detailed exchange of information between the Federal agencies and state and local commissions administering fair housing laws. FHA and VA will inform the commissions of complaints they receive under the Order, including those involving housing not covered by the Order but covered by state or local anti-bias laws. In those cases where a fair housing law is violated, FHA and VA will withhold assistance.

**Appraisals.** FHA and VA were urged to re-examine their appraisal policies. Conferees suggested there are indications that race still plays a part in many FHA and VA valuations, tending to amplify the differential between Negro and white demand for housing in racially-mixed neighborhoods.

**Impact of the Order.** Commissioner Brownstein reported that no adverse effect on housing starts can be attributed to the Order, and there has been no discernible movement away from FHA and VA to conventional financing.

### c) URBAN RENEWAL IN METROPOLITAN AREAS

**Background:** The Urban Renewal program was established in 1949 to assist localities in the elimination and prevention of slums and blight through 1) clearance and redevelopment of slum areas; 2) rehabilitation of deteriorating structures and neighborhoods; and 3) neighborhood conservation and housing code enforcement.

- 13 -

In order to qualify for Federal assistance to an urban renewal project, a 7-point Workable Program for Community Improvement must be developed by the locality and approved by the HHFA Administrator.

Urban renewal projects are planned and carried out by a local public agency. They are financed by local contributions, Federal advances and loans for surveys, planning and initial working capital, and ultimately by a Federal capital grant. The Federal contribution is two-thirds (three-fourths for communities with populations of 50,000 or less) of the net cost of purchasing and clearing the site -- that is, the total cost less the price received for the land which is sold to redevelopers.

By the end of October 1962, nearly 1300 urban renewal projects were being undertaken by 636 localities, with Federal grant reservations totalling more than $2.8 billion.

Latest figures from the Urban Renewal Administration on relocation (Dec. 31, 1961) indicate that 66 per cent of those displaced under its programs have been nonwhites.

Workshop Chairman: Harold C. Fleming, Executive Vice President, The Potomac Institute. Consultant: William L. Slayton, Commissioner, Urban Renewal Administration.

Panel: Theodore M. Berry, Attorney, Cincinnati, Ohio; Joseph Monserrat, Director, Migration Division, Department of Labor, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; William L. Rafsky, Housing and Urban Renewal Coordinator, City of Philadelphia; Edward Rutledge, Director of Housing, New York State Commission for Human Rights; and James H. Scheuer, President, Renewal and Development Corporation. Resource Person: J. Lawrence Duncan, Intergroup Relations Advisor, URA. Evaluator: Frank S. Horne, Consultant on Human Relations, New York City Housing and Redevelopment Board.

## MAJOR POINTS WHICH EMERGED:

**Nondiscrimination covenant.** Commissioner Slayton pointed out that under the terms of the Executive Order a nondiscrimination covenant will run in perpetuity with all land coming under loan and grant contracts after Nov. 20, 1962. Such covenants will apply not only to conventional housing, but also to libraries, schools, recreational areas, shopping centers, and other public facilities, as well as to dormitories, hotels, nursing homes, etc. These public facilities, which may be supplied by the city as part of its contribution to support the project, need not be on the urban renewal project site to be covered by the nondiscrimination covenant (See Appendix A, page 45, Digest of the Executive Order, Urban Renewal).

**Approval of Sites.** The Commissioner said URA may approve a site selected by a community even though it can be demonstrated that redevelopment of the tract in question will lead to the perpetuation of residential segregation unless such approval would violate a state anti-bias law.

**Integration.** Mr. Slayton emphasized that urban renewal programs are producing integrated housing. Members of the panel questioned whether or not the overall effect of the program was an increase of minority concentrations. It was suggested that tract analyses, based

- 14 -

on census figures, should be made in each community to determine racial shifts resulting
from redevelopment projects.

Discussants took the position that URA has the responsibility to go beyond the nondiscrimi-
nation covenant; that it must be committed to the principle of integration. Each proposed
project, it was urged, should be reviewed in relation to a positive goal of open occupancy.

**Relocation.** The Commissioner said the great majority of persons relocated by urban renewal projects end up in better living accommodations. URA, he said, is now involving social workers and welfare agencies in relocation activities.

At the present time, unless prohibited by state law, separate lists of relocation resources (that is, those available to whites and those available to Negroes) may be kept by the local public agency.

**Staff Training.** Several conferees, including a redeveloper, pointed out that policies propounded in Washington by URA are frequently not carried out in the field. The agency was urged to "beef up" its staff training activities and to tighten supervision.

**Community Action.** Mr. Slayton stressed the importance of voluntary citizens' action at the community level. Federal regulations, he said, can do some good, but positive goals will be achieved only by local action -- citizens and the industry working together.

d) LITIGATION

**Background:** As noted heretofore, Section 102 of the Executive Order, generally referred to as the "good offices" section, directs the Housing and Home Finance Agency "and all other executive departments and agencies to use their good offices and to take other appropriate action permitted by law, including the institution of appropriate litigation, if required," to promote the abandonment of discriminatory practices in existing federally-aided housing. To date, no litigation has been initiated by the Federal Government.

This workshop was constructed as a session for lawyers. Consideration was given not only
to possible legal action under the Order, but to the reach of the Federal Constitution, as
well. Enforcement procedures under the Order were also examined.

Workshop Chairman: Berl I. Bernhard, Staff Director, U. S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Consultants: Harold S. Reis, First Assistant, Office of Legal Counsel, U. S. Department of Justice; Milton P. Semer, General Counsel, HHFA. Panel: Simon Rosenzweig, New York Attorney and member of the NCDH Legal Committee; Joseph Rauh, Jr., Attorney, Washington, D. C.

MAJOR POINTS WHICH EMERGED:

**Constitutional requirements.** Panel members took the position that over and above the Executive Order stands the mandate of the Federal Constitution that there be no discrimination in programs aided by the Government. Thus, in order to determine the

- 15 -

reach of the Constitution, Government should immediately embark upon a course of
litigation aimed at ending discrimination in pre-Order housing.

**Initial cases.** It was suggested that the two areas which may present the strongest fact situations are public housing and those developments where FHA sits on the board of directors, such as projects built under FHA Section 608. It was noted that at least one lower state court decision has held that FHA mortgage insurance constitutes sufficient Government involvement to warrant a ban on discrimination. Also, it was pointed out that opening all-white public housing projects may lead to integration of the surrounding neighborhoods.

**Government's responsibility.** Government spokesmen proposed that, in view of the Justice Department's limited staff of about 100 lawyers for this work, litigation should be instituted by civil rights groups, with the Government joining subsequently in appropriate cases. This proposal was overwhelmingly rejected on the ground that primary responsibility for enforcing constitutional requirements rests upon the Government. It was also stressed that the Department of Justice has far greater resources than voluntary groups.

"Mid-way" developments. Panelists took the position that the Government has "leverage" to end discrimination in the sale of houses in that part of a development for which a builder had received FHA or VA commitments prior to Nov. 20, 1962, but which had not been used by that date. Specific reference was made to the Levitt project now under construction in Belair, Md., and to FHA's failure to obtain compliance with the Order through the use of its "good offices." Outstanding commitments in such cases should be withdrawn, it was insisted, and no more should be issued to such builders anywhere in the country until they abandon discriminatory practices in federally-aided housing they are marketing.

Government representatives emphasized the prospective nature of the Order and questioned FHA's right to compel nondiscrimination in housing not specifically covered by the terms of the Order.

**Disqualification of builders.** Barring builders who discriminate from all future commitments was discussed. Would such action remove from the market good housing offered at less than the going price, thus placing an economic disadvantage on minority-group families? Should, for example, the Levitt firm be denied commitments for housing which would be sold on an open occupancy basis in those states which have anti-bias laws because it bars Negroes from its Belair development in Maryland, where no such law exists?

Panelists argued that a criterion of "good housing" should be open housing. FHA, they said, would not hesitate to blacklist a builder who constructed physically inferior developments. The same yardstick should be applied to builders who create socially inferior projects.

A re-examination of the regulations was promised by Government representatives.

- 16 -

**Nondiscrimination covenant.** In order to prevent discrimination in future sales and rentals, it was proposed that FHA and VA require a nondiscrimination covenant to run with the land, similar to that now being required by the Urban Renewal Administration.

**Interpretation of the "good offices" section.** It was agreed that this section should be interpreted liberally and should be employed at the first evidence of discrimination. The importance of fast action was stressed. Several instances were reported of the failure of FHA officials in field offices to act in cases of obvious discrimination.

**Enforcement of Section 101.** The consensus was that the following procedures should be followed in processing complaints filed under the mandatory section of the Order:
1) the Federal agency should immediately enter negotiations to obtain compliance - including, if necessary, the threat of withdrawal of commitments;
2) if conciliation efforts fail, administrative procedures should be invoked to hold the builder in violation of commitments should be cancelled;
3) if discrimination continues, immediate court action should be instituted.

-17-

B. THE CONFERENCE BANQUET, Thursday evening, April 25.

Presiding: Algernon D. Black

Speakers: Governor Endicott Peabody of Massachusetts, and NCDH President Charles Abrams

Excerpts from the Address by Governor Peabody

"THE HOMES WE LIVE IN"

The economic and social costs of enforced racial segregation are high. These costs include de facto segregation of schools and recreational facilities; confinement and crowding of the majority of the Negro population in the older blighted sections of cities with inadequate public services; effective exclusion of Negroes from the suburbs; uneconomic rents; preventable illness and death; and high rates of juvenile delinquency.

The first step in eliminating these evils from society is the passage of strong laws.... We in Massachusetts are proud that we have led the way in civil rights legislation throughout our history.

The latest addition to our arsenal of anti-discrimination laws is a bill outlawing discrimination in all housing accommodations save owner-occupied two-family homes. This legislation will increase coverage from less than fifteen percent to over ninety percent of the state's housing. The passage of the bill was a notable achievement, but perhaps even more notable was the amount and type of support it received. For chief among the supporters was the real estate industry. In fact, the original impetus for the bill came from a successful home developer who not only worked on the original draft but was active in a committee formed by the Commission Against Discrimination to sponsor this legislation. Many other important members of the industry joined this committee and later testified at the legislative hearings for the bill. Among them were:

* The Managing Director of the Brokers Institute of the Boston Real Estate Board;
* President of the Rental Housing Association;
* Director of the Boston Real Estate Board;
* and a representative of the Massachusetts Home Builders Association.

Many in the industry were motivated by a desire for relief from the importuning of a few prejudiced clients to restrict the offering of their homes. Such demands by the homeowner were not covered by law. On the other hand the realtors were compelled by law to show home and apartment seekers their full listing.

Others were persuaded by the fair method in which previous housing cases were handled by the Commission Against Discrimination. But what was most inspiring was the fact that an important segment of the industry was motivated by a sincere belief in the goals of the law and a conviction that it would work.

- 18 -

We are proud of this legislative record. But like the bear who went over the mountain
only to find another mountain, we now realize that beyond the mountain of equal opportunity
legislation there lies another far higher which represents the thorough application of these
laws.

The state's role must change from a passive to a positive one. It is not enough to be
against discrimination -- we must be for integration. Government itself must take the
leadership in supporting and promoting an open housing market. Today all too many
Northern state administrations shunt their civil rights problems to a Commission Against
Discrimination. Meanwhile, other state departments, who administer laws vitally affect-
ing minority interests, are allowed to operate freely, paying only lip service to the spirit
of the state fair practices laws. Often, for example, the only truly integrated organiza-
tion within state government turns out to be the Commission itself. Other departments
freely practice the subtle area of discrimination, secure in the knowledge that the
enforcing agency has neither the staff nor the administration to "pin the rose" where
it belongs.

In my campaign for Governor, and once again on February 21st in a special message to the Legislature, I pledged a change in administration attitude. I said that I would seek to enlist the total amount of the state's authority to realize our common goals. In my blueprint to accelerate progress in civil rights, I proposed the following:

First, an Interdepartmental Committee on Fair Practices, chaired by me, will be estab-
lished to examine present laws and practices of administrative agencies. Changes will
be made where barriers to equality of opportunity are found.

Secondly, through this committee I plan to develop a state code of fair practices applicable
to state operations. It will, among other things, make the state a model employer with
regard to the appointment, assignment and promotion of personnel... It will enlist the
efforts of all our licensing and regulatory agencies where appropriate. It will endeavor
to see that the state's responsibility over educational institutions is exercised in a way to
upgrade schools where minorities live.

Wherever possible, I will also enlist the cooperation of interested citizens both to advise
and to help in carrying out my program as it develops. Our Commonwealth boasts some
of the finest minds in the nation on the problem of civil rights. Shortly I shall form an
advisory committee composed of such persons.

Finally, to assist me in this task, I plan to establish within my office a Secretary on
Intergroup Affairs. This official would coordinate the activities of the advisory committee
and the Interdepartmental Committee on Fair Practices. He would oversee the develop-
ment and administration of the Governor's Code of Fair Practices. He would provide
ready contact with the Governor for all groups and citizens concerned with problems of
civil rights and civil liberties. Adding such a person to my staff will assure that previous
important programs are followed up.

Outside of the governmental framework, local groups in Massachusetts are doing a fine
job in promoting the spirit of the law.

-19-

Highlights from Nationwide Conference
CHALLENGE TO AMER

Addressing the opening session of the
N.C.D.H. Conference is Algernon D. Black,
Chairman of the Board, N.C.D.H.

The first step in eliminating
these evils from society is the
passage of strong laws. . . .
We in Massachusetts are
proud that we have led the
way in civil rights legislation
throughout our history.

From Address of Honorable Governor
Endicott Peabody, Governor of Massa-
chusetts.

Conferring at the N.C.D.H. nationwide
Administrator, Housing and Home F-
David Lawrence, Chairman, President
tunity in Housing.

This conference is concerned with one of the most urgent and basic
needs of our nation. In the battle for freedom and human dignity, the
battle for shelter, the battle for housing, the battle for civil rights,
which affects the entire world, and our country must take into ac-
count the efforts of the nationwide N.C.D.H. Conference.

From add

Charles Abrams, President, N.C.D.H., confers with Edward Eichler, Vice-President, Eichler Homes, at the nationwide N.C.D.H. Conference.

Jack Woods, Special Assistant for Home
Vice-President, N.A.H.B., at a work sho-

Photos by Vincent A. Finnigan

Issue on "Equal Opportunity in Housing"

AMERICAN COMMUNITIES

The conference is Hon. Robert C. Weaver, Justice Administration, and Hon. Gov. Kennedy's Committee on Equal Opportunity

"Welcome Neighbor" pledge campaigns are a valuable first step: they introduce the fair housing committee—its philosophy and its goals—

From address of Frances Levenson, Executive Director, N.C.D.H.

FHA's Administrator, Phillip N. Brownstein, outlines his agency's policy regarding new presidential executive order on housing.

parts of the civil rights struggle in the United States: equal access
is the real test. We are dealing with a moral and social dynamic
account the tempo of change throughout the world.

ness of Algernon D. Black at the nationwide N.C.D.H. Conference.

Housing, N.A.A.C.P., and Kimball Hill, shop session of the N.C.D.H. Conference.

Joseph Robeson, Assistant Director, Commission on Law and Social Action, American Jewish Committee, and Reginald Johnson, Associate Director, National Urban League, discuss work shop notes at N.C.D.H. Conference.

gan of House & Home Magazine

Because of the need for communication, a sharing of experiences, and exchange of ideas, local groups have affiliated in central bodies in several metropolitan areas. The four-year-old Fair Housing Federation of Greater Boston, for example, is composed of some 39 local groups. Dedicated volunteers work tirelessly to promote equal housing opportunities in their respective communities.

A quickening tempo is needed lest our children and grandchildren be faced tomorrow with the tremendous social problems spawned by denial of human rights today. The time has come to heed the wise words of that distinguished statesman -- and native son of Massachusetts -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said: "The great thing is not where we stand -- but where we are moving."

Let us all dedicate ourselves tonight to redoubling our energies in the fight for equal opportunity in housing. And let us never forget that this all-encompassing crusade centers about that one, small, but terribly important unit -- the house we live in.

### Excerpts from the Address by Mr. Abrams

## "THE ETHICS OF POWER IN A WELFARE SOCIETY"

One of the most powerful forces in the world today is urbanization. Almost everywhere the surge of population is making the city the quarry of people in search of something better. The forces that are drawing people to the cities vary -- famine, floods, over-population or oppression at the source, the hunger for jobs, the higher aspirations or the magnetism of urban life. The city has become the new frontier, albeit a second-hand frontier, the last surviving outpost of the deprived.

Urbanization and the suburbanization which it includes is a revolution -- perhaps the greatest revolution of our era. It is shattering the traditions of centuries, changing ways of life and patterns of human behavior. The city is still the hope, the man-made alternative that facilitates escape from rural misery and privation. It is still the crossway of diversities, the refuge of the downtrodden, the sanctuary of men fleeing oppression or fear.

In some ways it is still the sanctuary and still the cradle of freedom that has been its historic role. But the city is now also the center of conflict. The conflict exists because the people who are heading urbanward are mostly different from the established city dwellers. One now sees in the cities of the world new varieties of people whose habits, traditions, religions, races or colors are in contrast to the homogeneity of the older and smaller urban environments. The issue is whether the city's main element -- its capacity to preserve the freedoms -- can survive against the newer forces which challenge it.

One of the challenges is the age-old struggle for space which is now manifesting itself most dramatically on the urban scene. In many capitals of the world -- in Caracas, Manila, Ankara, and elsewhere -- are unlawful squatters who have seized land simply because no other means of securing access to urban space is possible.

- 20 -

In the United States where lawful process within a framework of political freedom still survives, the migrant to the city is the Negro, the Puerto Rican and the Mexican looking for a tiny fraction of the city's surface on which to live. As in the underdeveloped world, we too are coping with our new types of migrants and our own new varieties of problems. But they are different from what they were in the days of European immigration. Not only social and economic differences but color differences are adding a new dimension.

Simultaneously, the American political patterns have altered, for the newer migrants are competing for their place in a society in which government now possesses the full power to make space available or deny it. The dispensation of land, while still technically in private hands, now lies in the shadow of government: government power, government regulation, government purchase, government insurance, government subsidy. The mechanics of control of the space in the United States has now become a subtle and a complex process. The slum is no longer a private concern. The financing of homes is made possible by the financing or indirect support of government. The suburb where the new lands are is controlled by autonomous governmental units dominated by the existing in-dwellers, and their approvals or denials determine whether one may settle in their communities.

The devices for protecting civil rights have changed, too. The old checks and balances of the American system, written for a laissez-faire society, still survive in theory but they have altered in fact. With the vesting of the housing power in the federal government, Congress has become the most important force for providing the funds and generating the policies for their use. But it has left the implementation to local communities under the aegis of decentralization and local autonomy. States rights, an obsolete and exploded doctrine, has again won respect in the dispensation of federal funds released under the new welfare power. It has taken even firmer form in local rights within each state.

Federal regulation of oppression as a condition of the grant to local communities is almost nonexistent. Local autonomy and local tyranny have become virtually synonymous. The Supreme Court continues to function as a shield for individual rights, but in selected cases only, and its power to enforce its orders is fragile. Its decisions may be eloquent but its ability to implement those decisions has come to depend primarily upon the cooperation of Congress and the Executive. In our tripartite scheme of controls it is now the legislative and executive policies that govern the fate of civil rights in governmentally-aided programs like housing. It is in Congress that programs originate, but it is to local government that the implementation is passed on and it is at the local level that the destiny of civil rights under the new welfare society is determined. This major change in the political system has occurred almost unnoticed.

In the new contest for homes and space there is no shortage of land in the United States. Its whole population can be housed on the coast of California at twelve families to the acre with everyone having a view of the Pacific Ocean. But the rationalization of that space and the determination of who may have access to it now rests in the hands of government -- local government, state government and federal government. Local and state governments have an almost unlimited power of attorney to determine where people may build and whether to uproot those from the places in which they have already found haven.

- 21 -

I am convinced by what I heard at the panel this morning that this struggle for space in America can no longer be resolved solely by litigation or by antidiscrimination laws or by Executive Orders, helpful and needful as these are. The struggle for space will be determined in the long run by the nature of the laws -- regulatory and programmatic -- which are made and enforced at the three levels of government: zoning and subdivision laws at the local level, enabling laws at the state level, and housing appropriation laws at the federal level. The housing administrator and the administrator of the President's Executive Order, however well-intentioned they might be, are only limited agents in the process.

Each law and each program carries with it the power to benefit or oppress. It is only by identifying intent and method of implementation that the true measure of benefit and oppression can be assessed. Thus urban renewal which displaces minorities oppresses more than it benefits them and the requirement of relocation is no more than a frail pretext for appeasing conscience. FHA is a boon to the white middle class and the skilled worker but it carries with it the hidden sanction of exclusion as long as it continues to recognize local zoning practices and conforms to them. Public housing benefits but is little more than a handout, and its benefits are minuscule as long as it confines itself to cities and offers only tenancy to minorities while excluding ownership. More realism and a more sophisticated approach to social reform and civil equality are needed than simply standing by and accepting the promises and generalizations of the hustings.

The whole system of checks and balances set up at the nation's founding for a rural, laissez-faire society needs re-casting for a society in which government has assumed the initiative. The committee system in Congress which vests power in a few men to release legislation, the shibboleth of local autonomy that precludes federal check on local despotisms, the attenuated federal Executive Orders that pay lip service to civil rights protection, all need re-study and adaptation to a political system in which the three levels of government have become the moving forces.

I think we should press for better enforcement of the President's Executive Order; we should press for more protection in the Supreme Court; we should make every effort to obtain more state laws against discrimination. But in the long run the struggle for shelter will be reflected in the underlying intent of the political leaders, the type of housing legislation which is enacted in the Congress and the checks and controls which Congress and the Executive impose upon the urban and suburban governmental units which are the recipients of its funds. If Congress, for example, enacted a law which made loans at nominal interest rates for home ownership as well as for public housing and subsidized the ownership as it is now subsidizing the rental, there would be more chance of the underprivileged people enjoying the freedom to move which underlies the American heritage. The subsidy in fact would be no greater than it is in public housing, and its benefits to minorities would be far greater than any civil rights laws. But this would require a new type of political contest and this is not even in embryo. The firm resolve of executive agencies to condition federal aid in suburbs upon programs which can make housing available to all will do more to ease the poor man's housing problem than all the official pronouncements on equality or the appointment of anti-discrimination commissions. But such a framework in the contest for shelter has not yet been blueprinted.

- 22 -

It is therefore time that the realities of the housing dilemma are faced. The right to
choose a home and to secure access to land is no longer solely a private determination.
The enlargement of governmental power at all levels, while expanding the opportunity
for equalization of rights, has also vested the power to limit those opportunities through
the use of subtle governmental devices. Under the new system in which governmental
power has become the moving force for the creation, limitation or destruction of shelter,
the destiny of the individual is now determined by the ethics of power. The ethics of
power revolve around the manner of its use, and this in turn will be decided by whether
the prerogative of local majorities will yield to the rights of the individual and the
larger ethics of the society.

:::

- 23 -

C. VOLUNTARY CITIZENS' ACTION

1. General Session, Friday morning, April 26.

Presiding: Joseph B. Robison, Assistant Director, Commission on Law and Social Action, American Jewish Congress, and Chairman, NCDH Legal Committee

Speaker: NCDH Director Frances Levenson

Excerpts from Miss Levenson's Address

"AN OVERVIEW OF GRASS ROOTS ACTIVITIES IN HOUSING"

One of the major distinguishing factors of the civil rights movement of the '60's is that of direct action and citizen participation. During the '50's, gains were brought about primarily through legal, administrative and legislative action initiated and carried forward by the professional. The role of the citizen was to provide the funds and support the effort.

Today, on the housing front, rank and file involvement and direct action are becoming an increasingly significant part of the struggle for equal rights. Perhaps one of our emerging problems is that of finding an effective liaison between the professional and the volunteer.

This is a particularly interesting development in the housing field, with its history of property owners associations dedicated to excluding people of different color, class, or religion. Today, in the very same communities citizen action for inclusion is coming to the fore -- the need, of course, arising out of the restrictive practices of the past -- the techniques similar, but with different goals.

The first real examples of community participation in the housing-civil rights movement occurred in the area of neighborhood stabilization. Here, the well-being of the individual home owner and resident was being directly affected by rapid and destructive racial change. By 1949, the residents of Hyde Park-Kenwood in Chicago were organizing and acting, with preservation of racial integration as one of their goals. In 1954, Negro and white residents of the Germantown area of Philadelphia, developed a more refined and sophisticated movement to maintain an integrated community and prevent manipulation and rapid racial change. By 1956, stabilization efforts had spread to Baltimore, Teaneck, New Jersey, and to Springfield Gardens in New York City. The "Not For Sale" signs and placards were definitely on the march. Mass circulation magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post and Redbook gave wide coverage to the Baltimore and Teaneck experiences. In 1955, the classic guide to action was developed by John McDermott and Dennis Clark in Philadelphia, in their article, "Helping the Panic Neighborhood - A Philadelphia Approach."

At the same time that stabilization efforts were spreading from community to community, a steadily growing discontent and discomfort appeared regarding the positive results of even successful neighborhood stabilization -- and success became more and more elusive. It was increasingly apparent that the approach was a negative one, despite the fact that the maintenance of an integrated community was emphasized. An inevitable result was

- 24 -

a restriction of living areas available to nonwhite families. Slowly, a few groups began to think of combining the positive -- to try to open new areas while stabilizing old. The first community attempts to open new areas again borrowed from the exclusionary techniques of the past.

In 1956, about 1500 people signed a covenant of open occupancy in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, agreeing to put their names on a public advertisement pledging to welcome to their neighborhoods all persons regardless of race. At the same time, groups in Syracuse, New York, Providence, Rhode Island, and California were beginning to experiment with direct action to open housing opportunities for specific nonwhite families. The Syracuse Friends Meeting in 1954 was the first to engage paid staff to work to find housing for Negro families in neighborhoods previously closed. San Jose, California, in 1956 started a listing service of housing for sale on an open basis. In the same year, Friends Suburban Housing was organized in the Philadelphia suburbs -- the first brokerage to work only on an open occupancy basis. Citizens in Palo Alto in 1957 advertised for open occupancy listings. A group in Providence, reading in *Trends* about the ad, tried the same technique to find a home for a newly arrived Negro doctor.

Berkeley, California began a listing program in 1958. Also in 1958, Alfred Kramer of the National Council of Churches began to write on the philosophical and conceptual basis for what he called the "planned dispersion" movement.

The American Friends Service Committee began to assign staff in some areas to help and service local efforts.

In 1960, NCDH identified 18 independent local groups working specifically to stabilize old neighborhoods or to open new ones. In 1963, a preliminary survey has identified 300. Thus, in a relatively short span of time, these local groups have developed and multiplied to become a significant force; in fact, they may well be the new "secret ingredient" necessary for an open housing market -- to bridge the gap and make possible more speedy transition from segregation to integration under the growing legislative and administrative advances.

Today the typical community fair housing committee is a strictly indigenous affair, with no formal tie to any national or "outside" organization. Interestingly, they are found most often in upper middle class white suburbia. These committees are a classic example of grassroots initiative, formed entirely by individual residents of the localities in which they operate. All of their activities are centered on one objective: making integration a reality in their own communities. The committees are usually organized by a small group who somehow become concerned at the all-white character of their community. They are motivated by moral conviction and most importantly by concern for their children's growing up in a lily-white neighborhood in a multi-racial world.

There is no set pattern to the initiation of a local fair housing committee. It may have been directly or indirectly sparked by some program of church or synagogue, or of a civil rights agency, or a political body. A particular incident of discrimination may have aroused the indignation of some people with sound democratic attitudes who were heretofore complacent.

- 25 -

Their geographic spread is impressive. Forty groups are working in Boston and in the ring of outlying towns which circle the city; a network of committees is spread over the San Francisco Bay area; they are functioning in Greater Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Cleveland, Washington, D. C., Seattle, Philadelphia, and in a host of other metropolitan areas. More than 75 have been identified in the Greater New York City region alone.

Activities of the groups vary widely; some are new and in the "studying" stage; some adopt an "educational" approach; some are militant, with multi-pronged programs. Some professional help has been provided, principally through the Friends Service Committee or through a local private agency. But by and large, they are volunteer, indigenous, separate. Yet a remarkable similarity of approach, technique, and problems emerges.

Many of the committees have launched their programs with a "Welcome Neighbor" pledge-signing campaign, often seeking the cooperation of religious institutions in carrying out the project. The drives have usually been highly successful, and have culminated in an ad in the local press carrying the text of the pledge and the names and addresses of the signers.

"Welcome Neighbor" pledge campaigns are a valuable first step: they introduce the fair housing committee -- its philosophy and its goals -- to the community at large; they provide an opportunity for direct community education; and they are apt to build up membership in the group. Pledge campaigns, however, should have their follow-up planned in advance.

Faced with by-passing the restrictions imposed by discriminatory real estate practices, many of the local fair housing committees operate a housing listing service that is considered by many as the most important new element. They do not serve as brokers and they accept no fees. Their aim is to establish direct communication between the home-seeker and the seller or the landlord, thus filling the vacuum created by the absence of normal marketing channels.

Listings are obtained in a variety of ways: some committees have provided space on their "welcome neighbor" pledge cards for listing an apartment for rent or a home for sale; some come by word of mouth; some groups invite listings by placing ads in the local press (some also offer their services in this manner); telephone checks of the real estate classified section of the local press are made by committee members to determine if the housing offered is available on an open occupancy basis. Many groups obtain their listings from FHA and VA repossessed housing. The listings must then be communicated to minority homeseekers.

Despite complexities and disappointments, these local, voluntary groups of "citizens for integration" have helped in breaking through the color wall in countless communities across the country.

- 26 -

In Greater Boston, with the assistance of the network of local groups (these have formed a federation of fair housing committees), nonwhite families have moved into every previously all-white suburban community in the metropolitan area. The New Haven (Conn.) group has aided no less than 60 families in similar moves. On the West Coast, proliferating fair housing groups are opening area after area to minority-group residents. During the summer of 1962, some 70 committees operating in the Greater New York City Region (another federation has been formed here) were instrumental in the movement of at least 125 nonwhite families into neighborhoods previously closed to them. And, no one can estimate the number of nonwhite families who secured housing covered by New York's anti-bias laws as a result of "checkers" supplied by voluntary fair housing groups.

Stabilization efforts have slowed down the rate of racial change, and in some cases have been successful in reintroducing white families into changing neighborhoods.

In some few areas a fair housing group has even enlisted the cooperation of a broker. Mortgage money, once a problem, no longer seems to be a serious one.

It would be misleading to suggest that these grassroots committees are a major national force as yet. However, they can surely be called a "sign of the times" -- a spontaneous demonstration of a changing climate of opinion in the United States. The rapidity with which they are forming, their geographic spread, and their not insignificant record of accomplishment indicate they are destined to play a central role in the drive for a truly democratic society.

Any evaluation of the effectiveness and significance of the "fair housing committee" movement -- and it does warrant the description "movement" -- must begin with a recognition of the problems implicit in the very nature of these committees. They are indigenous and volunteer -- the epitome of the grassroots. These factors contribute to both their strength and their weakness.

The fact that they are of the community, and are not organized by outsiders, gives them a built-in acceptance. However, often their isolation and lack of communication with similar groups handicaps the development and carrying out of program. Very often the only thing they have in common is the fact that many of their members subscribe to *Trends* and get literature from NCDH.

The calibre of their leaders varies greatly, as do their resources. There is insufficient access to professional assistance. Many need to be given a sense of identification with a growing movement and an awareness that their contribution is a significant one.

There is an urgent need for development of a whole range of "how-to" materials and specific program ideas. Some of this will grow out of actual experience; some will emerge from exchange among the groups; some must be the result of new, creative exploration.

Most of the groups are finding they must guard against initial over-confidence followed by discouragement as time goes on. It is always difficult for volunteer bodies, after the first flush of enthusiasm, to weather the dreary day-by-day working and waiting. It is

- 27 -

almost a truism in the housing field that things move slowly -- after the first house is sold, there may be a long, long wait for the second sale.

One of the most urgently felt needs is that of communication with the minority community. With limited funds, the fair housing committee cannot afford commercial aid in publicizing the services it offers. There is a limit to the free publicity it can obtain in the press -- aside from the fact that the local press may reach few minority-group families. The very fact that many of the groups are working in an all- or predominantly-white community further complicates the problem of communication.

Thus it is often easier to get listings of homes than to find ready, willing, and able Negro buyers. And once a prospect is found, there are still hurdles to be crossed. For example, brokers estimate they must show some 30 to 40 houses to a family before a sale is consummated. While some committees have listings that approach 100, most of them usually have less than 25 at any one time. The question of personal preference is an important one in the selection of a home, and none of the 10 or 20 houses listed may fill the needs or desires of the prospective buyer.

Then there is the economic problem. In many suburban communities available homes may be high-priced, and the nonwhite market for such housing may be severely limited -- the inevitable result of long discrimination in education and employment.

And, finally, there is the understandable reluctance of many minority-group families to "pioneer" -- or just to move out to the suburbs.

Voluntary fair housing committees have a vast potential. They also have vast needs in order to realize that potential. They need help to protect themselves against unrealistic goals and consequent discouragement when they don't reach them. They need coordination and communication among themselves, and with the minority community. Programs must be broadened out from a community basis to a metropolitan-area basis. The development of affiliations and federations in areas like California, New York, and Boston is encouraging.

The minority community needs consumer education programs, as well as basic information on which to assess their desires and motivation. The Friends program in Burlington County, New Jersey, offers many lessons in this regard.

In-city stabilization efforts are becoming increasingly sophisticated, are achieving greater gains, and need direct liaison with the fair housing committees in suburbia. Here, a most encouraging development is exemplified by the cooperation between Neighbors, Inc., in Washington, D. C., and the newly-formed Friends Suburban Maryland program.

This area of local citizens action for democracy, it seems to me, poses a direct challenge to the Foundations -- both large and small. They have before them a unique opportunity to support practical, realistic educational programs aimed at root problems.

Finally, we need a bulwark of vigorous administrative action on the local, state and Federal level, to the end that government and citizens may, through cooperative effort, build a truly integrated, truly inclusive American society.

- 28 -

## 2. WORKSHOP SESSIONS, Friday morning, April 26

### a) GETTING AND USING LEGISLATION

**Background:** Twelve states (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington State) and six cities (New York, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Schenectady, Philadelphia and Albuquerque) now have laws which bar discrimination in some part of the private housing market. An additional five states and almost 60 cities have acted to remove restrictions from government-aided housing. In 1963, campaigns were waged in 16 states and numerous cities for fair housing legislation.

These laws are an important support for the work of grassroots committees which are working to open restricted neighborhoods or to stabilize those undergoing racial change. Knowledge of enforcement procedures and skillful use of fair housing laws can increase the effectiveness of a voluntary group in marked degree. Also, many individuals attending the Conference were involved in campaigns to enact fair housing laws or to strengthen existing legislation. Various techniques and strategies were examined in this session.

* * * * *

**Workshop Chairman:** Sol Rabkin, Director, Law Department, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. **Special Consultant:** Commissioner George Fowler, Chairman, New York State Commission for Human Rights. **Panel:** Gerald Berlin, former Assistant Attorney General, State of Massachusetts; Irving Jay Fain, Sponsor, University Heights Redevelopment Project, Providence, R.I.; Donald S. Frey, Chairman, United Citizens' Committee for Freedom of Residence in Illinois; Madison S. Jones, Jr., Executive Director, New York City Commission on Human Rights; and Elliott M. Shirk, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.

### MAJOR POINTS WHICH EMERGED:

#### On Getting Legislation:

* The campaign should be coordinated by a representative, single-purpose spearheading committee. Try to involve all major religious, civil rights, labor, and civic groups, thus assuring both status and access to large numbers of voters. Also aim for the active participation of prominent influential citizens.

* Investigate the extent and effect of discrimination in housing in the state or locality. Be armed with facts and use them objectively.

* Aim for comprehensive legislation which covers the bulk of the housing market.

* Have experts in the field draft the proposed legislation. (Consultation with the NCDH Legal Committee is available.)

* Provide for the enforcement agency to seek an injunction to hold the housing at issue in status quo during pendency of a complaint, and for the agency to initiate complaints.

- 29 -

* Try to gain support from the housing industry. If there is a fair employment commission in the area, its advisory committee may have real estate members who are good prospects.

* In some states the industry has supported fair housing legislation on the condition that it cover property owners, real estate agents, and lending institutions -- thus putting everyone on the same basis.

* Use all available talent to dramatize the issue. In Illinois, for example, a Freedom of Residence Caravan traveled throughout the state for 40 days presenting a one-act play on housing discrimination written by a housewife member of the committee.

* Have a small group of political experts skilled in the art of legislative action to guide strategy.

## On Using Legislation:

* The enforcement agency must have adequate funds, competent staff, and backing of the administration to do an effective job.

* Civil rights groups must serve as "watchdogs," putting pressure on the agency to insure vigorous enforcement of the law, and standing ready to support it when it needs bolstering.

* Dynamic educational programs are essential, both for the industry and for the general public. Special attention should be given to informing the minority communities on the provisions of the law, and to encouraging them to use it.

* Cases which are successfully conciliated should be given wide publicity.

* Every possible effort should be made to secure the cooperation of the real estate industry, using a variety of educational program techniques, such as conferences, workshops, personal contacts, etc.

* Members of local fair housing groups should become "experts" on what the law covers and the procedures to be followed in using it most effectively.

## "Musts" for Effective Enforcement

* The official administrative agency should have a sense of urgency about enforcing the law and should communicate this to the public.

* Fair housing laws should be interpreted liberally, and enforcement policies should be positive and firm. Educational programs are extremely important; promotional work with the industry is important; both the "carrot and the stick" are necessary -- but there should be no doubt that the "stick" is there.

* Fast action on complaints is essential. Conciliation efforts should be thorough, but should not be dragged out. Long protracted efforts to conciliate only contribute to the disenchantment of minority groups with the law.

- 30 -