Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice City of Ithaca • New York May 2015 CITY OF ITHACA Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
PREPARED BY: Karen W. Baer, Director of Human Rights James Douglas, OHR Paralegal Aide Tompkins County Office of Human Rights (OHR) 120 W. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Ithaca, New York 14850
PREPARED FOR: City of Ithaca Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE FROM:
OHR Staff Sarah C. Simmons, Program and Outreach Specialist Carmen Arroyo, Administrative Aide
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) Staff Nels Bohn, Director Lynn C. Truame, Community Development Planner
Tompkins County Joe Mareane, County Administrator Tompkins County Legislature Tompkins County Departments of Planning, Social Services, and Office for the Aging
U.S. Department of HUD/Buffalo Andrea A. Mujahid-Moore, GTM
WBA Research Deirdre Kurzweil
CNY Fair Housing Sally Santangelo, Executive Director Gregory Ayers, Enforcement Manager Conor Kirchner, Staff Attorney CNYFH Testers
Downtown Ithaca Alliance diments to Fair Housing Choice Photographs
All Focus Group and Survey Participants
Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 2
diments to Fair Housing Choice Analysis of Impe
Svante L. Myrick, Mayor City of Ithaca • New York 3
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Mayor
Svante L. Myrick Mayor of Ithaca
Common Council Members
Cynthia Brock Alder, 1st Ward
George McGonigal Alder, 1st Ward
Joseph “Seph” Murtagh Alder, 2nd Ward
J.R. Clairborne Alder, 2nd Ward
Donna Fleming Alder, 3rd Ward
Ellen McCollister Alder, 3rd Ward
Graham Kerslick Alder, 4th Ward
Stephen J. Smith Alder, 4th Ward
Josephine Martell Alder, 5th Ward
Deborah Mohlenhoff Alder, 5th Ward
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Board Planning and Economic Development Committee diments to Fair Housing Choice Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 4
Chapter 1 Executive Summary ...... 9
Chapter 2 Introduction ...... 16 Methodology/Lead Agencies ...... 17 Project Overview/Community Participation Process ...... 18
Chapter 3 Overview of the City of Ithaca ...... 21 Table of Contents Geography ...... 22 Demographics ...... 23 Index of Dissimilarity ...... 25 Populations of Color ...... 26 Limited English Proficient (LEP) ...... 28 Families with Children ...... 29 Persons with Disabilities ...... 30 Older Adults ...... 31 Homeless Populations ...... 32 Poverty Rates ...... 35 Public School Profiles ...... 36 Housing Resources ...... 41 City Boards/Commissions ...... 44 Housing Inquiries ...... 46 Housing Stock ...... 47 Affordability ...... 49 Subsidized Housing ...... 51 Employment ...... 55 Transportation ...... 57 Zoning and Land Use ...... 59 Property Taxes ...... 61
Chapter 4 Fair Housing Profile of City of Ithaca ...... 63 Education and Outreach ...... 63 Fair Housing Enforcement ...... 64 Incidents of Hate Crimes/Domestic Violence ...... 68 Private Lending ...... 69 AFFH-Obligated Agencies Within Jurisdiction ...... 70 Fair Housing Testing Results ...... 71 “Survey A” Results (Quantitative) ...... 72 “Survey B” Results (Anecdotal) ...... 93
Chapter 5 Identified Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ...... 97 diments to Fair Housing Choice Index of Appendice ...... 107 Appendix A: Survey A/Survey B Instruments ...... 108 Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 5 TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1 City of Ithaca Demographic Populations ...... 22 Table 2 Tompkins County Demographic Populations ...... 22 Table 3 LEP Populations in the City of Ithaca ...... 26 Table 4 Populations with Sensory Disabilities in Tompkins County ...... 28 Table 5 Tompkins County Population Trends ...... 29 Table 6 Poverty Rates: Individual vs. Family ...... 33 Table 7 ICSD Elementary School Scoring ...... 35 Table 8 City Board, Commission, and Elected Representative Demographics ...... 43 Table 9 2-1-1’s Top Categories of Caller Need ...... 44 Table 10 2-1-1’s Top Housing Needs for Callers ...... 44 Table 11 2014 FMR Regional Comparison ...... 48 Table 12 City of Ithaca Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income ...... 48 Table 13 City of Ithaca Housing Costs as Percentage of Household Income with a Mortgage ...... 48 Table 14 City of Ithaca Housing Costs as Percentage of Household Income without a Mortgage ...... 48 Table 15 Subsidized Housing Projects in Tompkins County ...... 49 Table 16 Demographics of HCV Holders in Tompkins County ...... 52 Table 17 City of Ithaca EEO-4 Report ...... 53 Table 18 Jobs by Industry Sector in Tompkins County ...... 54 Table 19 Percentage of Public Transit Users ...... 56 Table 20 Fair Housing Categories for City of Ithaca Residents ...... 63 Table 21 Number of Complaints by Location ...... 64 Table 22 NYS DCJS Hate Crime Incidents in Tompkins County by Agency ...... 66 Table 23 Domestic Violence Victims Reported in 2013 Tompkins County/City of Ithaca ...... 66 Table 24 Loans by type and Census Tract Tompkins County 2013 ...... 67 Table 25 Sub-Recipients of HOME or CDBG Funds 2004-2014 ...... 68 Table 26 Results of Testing by Protected Class ...... 71 Table 27 Survey A — Weights Applied to Survey Data ...... 72 Table 28 Survey A — Standard Error Rate ...... 73 Table 29 Survey A — Demographic Profile of Survey Sample ...... 74 Table 30 Survey A — Housing Location Preference ...... 75 Table 31 Survey A — Descriptions of Current Housing Situation, by Subgroup ...... 80 Table 32 Survey A — Most Important Considerations When Choosing a Place to Live ...... 82 Table 33 Survey B — Demographic Profile of Survey Sample ...... 94
diments to Fair Housing Choice
State Street, Ithaca (1901) State Street, Ithaca (1950) State Street, Ithaca (2000) Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 6 1
Figure 1 City of Ithaca Census Tract Map ...... 21 Figure 2 Demographic Percentages ...... 22 Figure 3 Tompkins County Demographic Percentages ...... 22 Figure 4 Percent of Change in Population by Race 2000-2010 ...... 22
Figure 5 Indices of Dissimilarity/Sister-City Demographic Comparisons ...... 23 OF FIGURES Figure 6 Percent Asian by Census Tract ...... 24 Figure 7 Percent Hispanic by Census Tract ...... 24 Figure 8 Percent African-American by Census Tract ...... 25 TABLE
Figure 9 Percent White by Census Tract ...... 25 Figure 10 Percent Two or More Races by Census Tract ...... 25 Figure 11 Changes in Family Composition (City of Ithaca) 2000-2010 ...... 27 Figure 12 Changes in Family Comparison 2000-2010 ...... 27 Figure 13 Percent Disabled in Tompkins County by Disability ...... 28 Figure 14 Total Homeless Populations in Tompkins County ...... 30 Figure 15 Categories of Homeless Populations ...... 31 Figure 16 Unsheltered Characteristics ...... 31 Figure 17 Sheltered Characteristics ...... 31 Figure 18 Sheltered Groups ...... 31 Figure 19 Transitionally-Housed Projects ...... 32 Figure 20 Transitionally-Housed Groups ...... 32 Figure 21 Sheltered Sites ...... 32 Figure 22 Family Poverty Rates by Race/Ethnicity ...... 33 Figure 23 Individual Poverty Rates by Census Tract ...... 33 Figure 24 ICSD Elementary School Boundaries ...... 34 Figure 25 ICSD Elementary School Demographics ...... 35 Figure 26 ELA Proficient ...... 36 Figure 27 Math Proficient ...... 36 Figure 28 Free and Reduced Price Lunch Students ...... 36 Figure 29 Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations ...... 37 Figure 30 Beverly J. Martin Elementary Demographics ...... 37 Figure 31 Belle Sherman Elementary Demographics ...... 37 Figure 32 Fall Creek Elementary Demographics ...... 38 Figure 33 South Hill Elementary Demographics ...... 38 Figure 34 Housing Built Before 1949 by Census Tract ...... 45 Figure 35 Housing Built Before 1980 by Census Tract ...... 45
Figure 36 City of Ithaca Housing by Year Built ...... 45 Figure 37 City of Ithaca Rent or Own Profile ...... 46 Figure 38 City of Ithaca Bedroom Profile ...... 46 Figure 39 City of Ithaca Housing Type ...... 46 Figure 40 Owner-Occupied Housing by Census Tract ...... 46 Figure 41 Renter-Occupied Housing by Census Tract ...... 46 Figure 42 Median Rent by Census Tract ...... 47 Figure 43 Median Home Value by Census Tract ...... 47 Figure 44 Ithaca’s Percent of FMR Growth 2006-2014 ...... 47 diments to Fair Housing Choice Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 7 2
)
Figure 45 City of Ithaca FMR Trend ...... 48 con’t ( Figure 46 Subsidized Multi-Family Housing Sites in Ithaca ...... 50 Figure 47 Ithaca Housing Authority Project Locations ...... 50 Figure 48 Families with HCVs in City of Ithaca ...... 51
Figure 49 Families with HCVs in Tompkins County ...... 51 Figure 50 Percentage of HCVs vs. Percentage of Total Tompkins County Population ...... 52 Figure 51 Civilian Labor Force Participation: Race, National Origin, Sex ...... 53 Figure 52 Unemployment Rate Comparison ...... 54 Figure 53 Labor Force Profile, City of Ithaca ...... 54 Figure 54 TCAT Route Map (County-Wide) ...... 55
Figure 55 Means of Transportation to Work ...... 56 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 56 Travel Times to Work ...... 56 Figure 57 Percentage of Non-Taxable Property ...... 59 Figure 58 Combined County/Municipal Property Tax Rate Comparison ...... 59 Figure 59 Ithaca and Tompkins County Complaints by Basis ...... 64 Figure 60 HUD Complaints by Basis 2010-2013 Average ...... 64 Figure 61 Tompkins County Complaints by Disposition 2005-2014 ...... 65 Figure 62 HUD Complaints by Disposition 2013 ...... 65 Figure 63 Tompkins County Complaint Volume ...... 65 Figure 64 Ratio of Conventional Mortgages Denied ...... 68 Figure 65 Ratio of FHA Mortgages ...... 68 Figure 66 Fair Housing Testing Results ...... 70 Figure 67 Survey A — Would Consider Moving Elsewhere? ...... 75 Figure 68 Survey A — Interested in Purchasing Home in Next Five Years ...... 76 Figure 69 Survey A — Current Housing Situation ...... 76 Figure 70 Survey A — Interested in Changing in Next Five Years ...... 76 Figure 71 Survey A — Issues Preventing Moving to Preferred Housing ...... 77 Figure 72 Survey A — Receive Assistance to Help Pay for Housing ...... 78 Figure 73 Survey A — Type of Housing Assistance ...... 78 Figure 74 Survey A — Overall Satisfaction with Current Housing, by Subgroups ...... 79 Figure 75 Survey A — Most Important Considerations When Choosing a Place to Live ...... 81 Figure 76 Survey A — Current Housing Availability in Tompkins County ...... 83 Figure 77 Survey A — Types of Housing Assistance Most needed in Tompkins County ...... 84 Figure 78 Survey A — Experienced Issues with Housing Access in Past Two Years ...... 85 Figure 79 Survey A — Exposure to Housing Discrimination in Tompkins County in Past Five Years ...... 86 Figure 80 Survey A — Discrimination Reported ...... 86 Figure 81 Survey A — Believe that Housing Discrimination is Under-Reported in Tompkins County ...... 87 Figure 82 Survey A — Reasons for Alleged Discrimination ...... 88 Figure 83 Survey A — Denied Housing in Unprotected Categories ...... 89 Figure 84 Survey A — Where Alleged Discrimination Took Place ...... 89 Figure 85 Survey A — Who Engaged in Alleged Discrimination ...... 90 Figure 86 Survey A — Place(s) Where Alleged Discrimination Occurred ...... 90 Figure 87 Survey A — Nature of Alleged Discrimination ...... 91 Figure 88 Survey A — Prior Knowledge about Housing Discrimination ...... 92 Figure 89 Survey B — Profile of Survey Sample by Race/Ethnicity ...... 95 Figure 90 Survey B — Age Profile of Survey Sample ...... 95 Figure 91 Survey B — Income Profile of Survey Sample ...... 95
Figure 92 Survey B — Bases of Alleged Discrimination ...... 96 diments to Fair Housing Choice Figure 93 Survey B — Source of Income and LEP ...... 96 Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 8 CHAPTER 1 Executive Summary
Purpose The purpose of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) is to identify practices and conditions in the City of Ithaca that are impeding housing opportunities for residents because of their race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin or other “protected class” status. Fair housing impediments include direct discriminatory actions, omissions or decisions related to membership in a protected class, or indirect actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices for people specifically because of their protected class membership.
The City is required by the Fair Housing Act to “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing” and for that purpose, this AI identifies fair housing choice constraints and offers planning strategies that can be incorporated into other community planning and development processes and decisions. Furthermore, this study is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a condition for receiving federal housing funds, and should be completed in coordination with the City’s five-year “Consolidated Plan” that describes how those funds will be spent, so that the City can show that it understands the various direct and indirect impediments to fair housing choice and is actively working to eliminate discriminatory practices and disparate outcomes.
Overview of Study The City of Ithaca contracted with the Tompkins County Office of Human Rights to complete an AI for the City. The AI combines data available from a wide variety of sources, including population, demographic, economic and housing data from the City of Ithaca, U.S. Census Bureau, the American Community Survey, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, and the Tompkins County Departments of Planning, Social Services, and the Office for the Aging.
This data review and analysis was combined with information gathered during a series of fair housing choice initiatives — including focus groups with housing and social service professionals, two fair housing choice surveys of residents and local disenfranchised populations, and a fair housing testing project. The
information that was gathered and the data that was analyzed point to a set of at-risk groups and possible impediments.
This report, however, makes a distinction between indirect impediments (those that directly impact a protected class) and indirect impediments (those that may be a concern but cannot be directly linked to any particular protected group). For example, the lack of affordable housing is generally a barrier for all low-income people, regardless of protected class; therefore, in this AI the affordability of housing in Ithaca is viewed as an indirect impediment to fair housing choice. Furthermore, each identified impediment is supported by a number of observations that when considered collectively, support the existence of the corresponding barrier to fair housing choice.
The following impediments have equal weight and are not listed in any particular order. diments to Fair Housing Choice Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 9 List of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' DIRECT' WHY'IS'THIS'AN' IMPEDIMENT' OBSERVATIONS' IMPEDIMENT?' OHR'RECOMMENDATIONS' ' ' ' ! ! ! ! NO.'1' •! Between!2005!and!2014,!the! •! People!with! •!Seek!out!every!possible!resource!to! ' majority—43!percent—of!fair! disabilities!are!a! create!new!and!preserve!the! People'with' housing!complaints!filed!in! protected!class!under! existing!supply!of!accessible! disabilities' Tompkins!County!were!based!on! fair!housing!law.!!To! housing.!!This!includes!encouraging! Disability.! the!extent!that!they! surrounding!Tompkins!County! report'higher' ! cannot!enjoy!fair! communities!to!do!the!same.! •!!Approximately,!61!percent!of! levels'of' ! responders!to!“Survey!A”! housing!choices! •!Conduct!a!public!awareness! discrimination' expressed!a!belief!that!the!supply! equal!to!those!of! campaign!to!promote!fair!housing! and'lower'levels' of!accessible!housing!was!not! other!residents!of! laws!related!to!accessibility! similar!income!levels,! of'housing' meeting!current!demands.!!! standards,!assistance!animals,!and! ! a!fair!housing!barrier! other!forms!of!reasonable! accommodation' •!!Fair!housing!testing!found!nearly! is!created.! 50!percent!of!DisabilityNrelated! accommodation/modification.! than'other' ! tests!as!having!“Evidence”!of! •!Seek!out!sources!of!funding!and!fair! residents.' discrimination,!including!outright! housing!partnerships!in!order!to! ! rejection!of!applicants!with! continue!paired!testing!research!so! ! service!animals.! data!may!be!collected!for! ! ! enforcement!and!outreach! •!!Approximately,!87!percent!of! ! purposes.! units!in!the!City!were!built!before! ! ! ! 1980,!prior!to!ADA!and!other! •! In!the!process!of!regulating!and! accessibility!mandates.! enforcing!housingNrelated!activity! ! ! •! All!of!Ithaca!Housing!Authority! and!development,!the!City!should! (IHA)!elderly!units!were! consider!promoting!universal!design! constructed!in!the!1970s!and! elements!that!serve!people!of!all! early!1980s,!prior!to!ADA!and! abilities.! other!accessibility!mandates.! ! ! •!!City!of!Ithaca’s!2014N2018! Consolidated!Plan,!pp.!58N61,!78,! 103.! ! ! ! ! ! NO.'2' •! The!City!of!Ithaca!does!not! •! Title!VI!of!the!Civil! •!The!City!should!consider!revisiting!its! ' currently!have!a!Language! Rights!Act!of!1964! LEP!Plan!for!the!purpose!of! The'needs'of' Assistance!Plan,!nor!is!the!need! “requires!that! developing!a!viable!LAP!with!the!
Limited'English' for!one!mentioned!in!its!2013!LEP! federalNassistance! goal!of!providing!broader!and!more! Plan.!!! recipients!provide! comprehensive!language!services!to! Proficient'(LEP)' ! •! The!City’s!LEP!Plan!and! language!assistance! LEP!individuals!seeking!to!access!any! individuals'may' to!individuals!with! City!service!and/or!program.!!! accompanying!documents!do!not! ! be'underserved' refer!to!the!City’s!obligation!to! limited!English! •!The!City!should!consider!surveying! proficiency.!!Failure! by'the'City'of' provide!language!interpretation! all!its!federallyNassisted!subN to!ensure!that! and!translation!services!to!LEP! recipients!to!inquire!whether!they! Ithaca'and'by'its' persons!who!are!LEP! individuals!free!of!charge.!! are!in!compliance!with!LEP! subOrecipients'of' !! can!effectively! •! The!City!characterizes!its!LEP! mandates,!and!if!not,!to!encourage! federal'funding.''' participate!in!or! obligation!as!being!applicable! and!direct!them!to!be!so.!! benefit!from! ! ! solely!to!the!“Commons!Repair! federally!assisted! •!Conduct!a!public!awareness! and!Upgrade!Project”!for!which! programs!violates! campaign!to!help!make!LEP! the!City!received!FTA!funding!in! Title!VI's!prohibition! individuals!aware!of!their!eligibility! 2013.!!! to!receive!free!interpretation!and! ! against!National! •! The!City!does!not!appear!to! Origin!discrimination.! translation!assistance!in!the!course! diments to Fair Housing Choice interpret!its!LEP!obligations!as! ! of!accessing!City!programs.! ! applying!to!all!City!projects,! ! services,!or!programs.! ! •! 4.3!percent!of!persons!living!in! Tompkins!County!speak!English! “less!than!very!well.”!! ! Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 10 List of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' DIRECT' WHY'IS'THIS'AN' IMPEDIMENT' OBSERVATIONS' IMPEDIMENT?' OHR'RECOMMENDATIONS' ' ' ' ! ! !! ! NO.'3' •!Based!on!feedback!from!focus! •! Title!VIII!of!the!Civil! •! The!City!should!consider!reviewing! ' group!discussions!and!OHR! Rights!Act!of!1968! and!updating!its!CDBG/HOME!award! The'obligation' training!sessions!attended!by! (the!Fair!Housing!Act)! process!to!include!(in!addition!to! of'subOrecipients' representatives!of!agencies! requires!all!recipients! contract!language)!clear!notification! of'City' receiving!federal!dollars!from!the! and!subNrecipients!of! processes!and!briefing!opportunities! City,!it!is!apparent!that!these!subN HUD!funding!to! for!CDBG/HOME!awardees! CDBG/HOME' recipients!of!CDBG/HOME!funds! administer!its! regarding!their!obligation!to!AFFH,! funds'to' have!limited!knowledge!about! programs!in!a!way! while!assisting!with!strategies!for! Affirmatively' their!AFFH!obligations!and! that!affirmatively! compliance.! therefore!have!not!developed! furthers!fair!housing! ! Further'Fair' •! The!City!should!consider!publicizing! strategies!for!meeting!those! (AFFH),!the!failure!of! its!AFFH!obligation!as!a!requirement! Housing'(AFFH)' obligations.! which!creates! ! to!receiving!HUD!funds,!as!well!as! is'not'effectively' •!Although!several!City!subN barriers!for!all! detailing!its!AFFH!measures!and! communicated' recipients!of!CDBG/HOME!funding! protected!classes.! complianceNbased!activities!on!its! by'the'City'nor' are!professional!housing! website.! understood'by'' development!agencies,!many!are! not!—!having!small!staffs!and!a! its'subO primary!mission!that!is!not! recipients.' necessarily!housing!focused.! ! ! ! ' ! ! ! NO.'4' •! AI!data!show!that!15!percent!of! •! Because!protected! •! The!City!should!consider!revising! ' Tompkins!County!residents!have! individuals!are! City!Code!§215!to!include!effective! Exclusionary' disabilities,!but!nearly!40!percent! generally! local!enforcement!mechanisms!for! tactics'against' of!HCV!holders!are!documented! overrepresented!in! discrimination!complaints!that!arise! persons!with!disabilities.! pools!of!persons! from!its!jurisdiction.! households'who' ! ! receiving!public!or! •! AfricanNAmericans!constitute!only! •! While!revising!City!Code!§215,!the! rely'on'public' private!forms!of! 6.5!percent!of!Ithaca’s!population! City!should!consider!adding! and'private' overall,!but!represent!over!20! assistance!for! discrimination!based!on!“Source!of! subsidies'for' percent!of!HCV!recipients.! housing,!the!right!to! Income”!as!a!protected!category.! ! exclude!them!from! housing'is' ! •! FemaleNheaded!households!and! housing!based!on! prevalent'in'the' Latinos!are!also!overNrepresented! ! that!source!of!income! !
City'and'has'a' in!the!pool!of!HCV!users.! has!a!disparate! ! ! impact!on!protected! disparate' •! Fair!housing!test!results!showed! ! that!100!percent!of!HCVNholding! groups.! impact'on' ! ! testers!were!outright!rejected,! protected' •! Discrimination!based! ! steered!to!other!properties,!or! on!“Source!of! ! classes'in'Ithaca.' refused!based!on!the!HCV! Income”!may!not! ! ! agency’s!security!deposit!policy.! only!pose!an!illegal! ! ! •! Approximately!17!percent!of! disparate!impact!on! ! “Survey!A”!responders!said!they! protected!class! ! had!been!denied!housing!in!the! members;!at!times,!it! ! past!based!on!their!source!of! may!also!be!a!pretext! ! income.! for!direct! ! ! discriminatory! ! ! treatment.! ! diments to Fair Housing Choice ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 11 List of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' DIRECT' WHY'IS'THIS'AN' IMPEDIMENT' OBSERVATIONS' IMPEDIMENT?' OHR'RECOMMENDATIONS' ' ' ' ! ! ! ! NO.'5' •! In!the!City,!renterNoccupied! •! Discriminatory!and! •!Conduct!a!public!awareness! ! housing!makes!up!nearly!74! unlawful!housing! campaign!to!promote!fair!housing! Some'housing' percent!of!all!housing!units,!more! practices!limit!fair! laws!and!best!practices!related!to! professionals’' than!double!the!national!average.! housing!choices!for! the!rights!and!responsibilities!of! ! policies,' •! Many!landlords!in!Ithaca!and! all!protected!groups.! tenants,!landlords,!property! ! managers,!lenders,!real!estate! practices,'and' Tompkins!County!are!not!large! business!entities.!!Instead,!they! agents,!and!human!service! lack'of' providers.! are!“mom!and!pop”!shops,! ! knowledge'limit' renting!out!a!small!number!of! •!Provide!and/or!encourage!fair! housing'options' units!and!not!well!educated!on! housing!training!for!smaller! for'protected' federal,!state,!or!local!laws! landlords,!property!managers,! regarding!fair!housing.! lenders,!real!estate!agents,!and! classes.' ! •! Based!on!“Survey!A”!—!!(1)!an! human!service!providers.! ! ! overwhelming!majority!of! •!The!City!should!consider!publishing! responders!(90!percent)! fair!housing!enforcement! perceived!landlords!to!be!leading! information!on!its!website!for!the! perpetrators!of!housing! purpose!of!educating!tenants!and! discrimination;!and!(2)!nearly! homebuyers!about!how!to!file!a!fair! oneNhalf!of!Tompkins!County! housing!complaint!and/or!how!to! residents!rate!themselves!as! obtain!fair!housing!counseling.! having!“very!little”!or!“no”! ! •! As!part!of!an!annual!code! knowledge!about!fair!housing.! ! enforcement!communiqué!to!all! •! Over!19!percent!of!fair!housing! registered!rental!housing!property! tests!returned!a!showing!of! owners,!the!City!should!consider! “Evidence”!of!discrimination,! sending!fair!housing!information,!in! including!some!very!direct! addition!to!routinely!disbursing! examples!of!fair!housing! flyers!and!invitations!to!fair!housing! violations;!e.g.,!rejecting!and! related!trainings!and!workshops! steering!families!with!children! being!provided!in!the!community.! and!refusal!to!consider!applicants! ! ! with!service!animals.! ! ! ! ! ! •! The!City’s!zoning!ordinance!does! •! Housing! •! The!City!should!consider!including!a!
NO.'6' ' not!include!any!discussion!about! development!and! discussion!about!fair!housing!in!its! Processes' fair!housing!or!related!issues.! occupancy!policies,!if! zoning!ordinance.! ! cumbersome!or!too! ! related'to'the' •! As!a!best!practice,!communities! •! Engage!in!biNannual!discussions!of! construction'of' with!problems!related!to! restrictive,!run!the! housing!policies!in!order!to!update! risk!of!limiting!the! housing'within' inadequate!sources!of!affordable! best!practices!for!encouraging!fair! housing!should!regularly!review! number!of!affordable! housing!choice.! the'City'may' housing!units!most! ! and!assess!policies!related!to! •! Conduct!focus!group!dialogues!with! limit'housing' housing!development!and! needed!by!protected! classes.! stakeholders!(private!and!nonN choice'and' planning!for!the!purpose!of! profit),!such!as!developers,! eliminating!procedural!barriers.! inhibit'the' ! community!groups,!and! development'of' •! The!risk!to!housing!developers!is! neighborhoods!for!feedback!on! high!as!they!navigate!to!meet!the! development!processes.! affordable' demands!of!local!regulations.!The! housing'within' time!frame!from!inception!to! diments to Fair Housing Choice the'City.' approval!can!be!as!long!as!3N4! ' years,!a!period!in!which!prices,! needs,!and!risk!may!easily! ! fluctuate.! ! •! City!of!Ithaca’s!2014N2018! Consolidated!Plan.!
! Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 12 List of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' DIRECT' WHY'IS'THIS'AN' IMPEDIMENT' OBSERVATIONS' IMPEDIMENT?' OHR'RECOMMENDATIONS' ' ' ' ' ! ! ! No.''7' •! City!of!Ithaca’s!local!antiN •! Discriminatory!and! •! In!coordination!with!the!County’s! ' discrimination!law!(City!Code! unlawful!housing! review!of!Local!Law!C,!the!City! The'City'of' §215)!does!not!grant!or!identify! practices! should!consider!revising!City!Code! Ithaca'does'not' specific!enforcement!powers!or! substantially!impact! §215!to!include!an!effective!local! provide'its' otherwise!provide!for!any! protected!groups!by! enforcement!mechanism!for! meaningful!mechanism!by!which! limiting!their!fair! discrimination!complaints!that!arise! residents'with' complaints!arising!within!the!City! housing!choices.! within!the!City’s!jurisdiction.! any'effective' may!be!processed.! ! ! •! The!City!should!consider!limiting! ! ! legal'mechanism' •! Tompkins!County’s!antiN local!protected!categories!to!those! ! by'which'their' discrimination!law!(Local!Law!C)! currently!enforced!by!state!and! ! fair'housing' only!protects!victims!of! federal!law,!while!adding!”Source!of! discrimination!based!on!Sexual! Income”!and!“Domestic!Violence! rights'are'' Orientation,!Gender!Identity,!and! Victim!Status”!as!local!protections.!! meaningfully' Gender!Expression.! ! enforced.' •! The!nearest!agency!for!an!Ithaca! ' resident!to!duly!file!an! ' administrative!fair!housing! ' complaint!is!Binghamton!(50! miles!away)!or!Buffalo,!New!York! (160!miles!away).! ! •! Based!on!“!Survey!A“!over!65! percent!of!residents!perceived!an! underNreporting!of!housing! discrimination!by!victims.! ! •! Over!19!percent!of!fair!housing! tests!returned!a!showing!of! “Evidence”!of!discrimination,! including!some!very!direct! examples!of!fair!housing! violations.! ! ' ! ! ! No.'8' •! In!2015,!there!was!an!increase!in! •! Emergency!and! •! Address!housing!issues!that! ' the!number!of!all!homeless! transitional!housing! marginalize!the!homeless!by! There'is''an' persons!for!both!the!HUD!PIT! cannot!be!viewed!as! continuing!to!seek!additional!funding! Count!and!the!Community!PIT! inadequate' valid!housing!choices! and!assist!in!the!provision!of!services! supply'of' Count,!reflecting!the!increased! number!of!persons!requiring! for!anyone;!neither!is! for!the!homeless,!including! emergency' emergency!shelters!and! homelessness!caused! emergency!shelter!space,!transitional! shelter'and' transitional!housing.! by!affordability!or! housing,!and!corresponding! transitional' ! •! In!2015,!the!number!of!sheltered! income!issues!alone.!! supportive!services,!by!directing! housing'services' persons!with!severe!mental!health! But!when!high!cost! grants!to!the!agencies!that!provide! especially'for' issues!increased!significantly.! burdens!and! these!services.! homeless' ! ! •! In!2015,!there!was!an!increase!in! exclusionary!rental! families'with' •! The!City!should!consider!efforts!to!(1)! the!number!of!homeless!children,! market!indicators! children'and' recruit!landlords!willing!to!work!with! largely!reflecting!an!increase!in!the! exist,!the!limited! persons'with' those!who!are!homeless!to!transition! number!of!homeless!families.! supply!of!emergency! disabilities.' ! to!stable!housing;!(2)!provide!a!wider! •! Presence!of!a!studentNdominated! shelter!and! diments to Fair Housing Choice ' range!of!housing!options!for!people! housing!market.! transitional!housing! ' ! with!mental!illness!and!substance! ' creates!temporary! •! Housing!providers’!widespread! abuse!issues!without!concentrating! barriers!for!families! practice!of!refusing!tenants!based! such!populations;!and!(3)!encourage! on!Source!of!Income.! with!children!and! ! scattered!site!housing!with!support! persons!with! •! Documented!lack!of!affordable! services!available.! housing!in!the!City!of!Ithaca.! disabilities!in!Ithaca.! ! Analysis of Impe ! ! ! City of Ithaca • New York 13 List of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' DIRECT' WHY'IS'THIS'AN' IMPEDIMENT' OBSERVATIONS' IMPEDIMENT?' OHR'RECOMMENDATIONS' ' ' ' ' ! ! ! No.'9' •! According!to!Ithaca!Housing! •! Discrimination!based! •! Conduct!a!public!awareness! ' Authority!(IHA)!data,!there!were! on!Familial!Status!is!a! campaign!to!promote!fair!housing! Ithaca’s'studentO 215!households!on!the!waiting!list! violation!of!federal! laws!related!to!Familial!Status! dominated' for!public!housing!in!May!2014.!! and!state!fair!housing! protections.! ! rental'market'' For!IHA!family!sites,!the!waiting! laws!and!its!practice! •! Continue!to!promote!the! period!is!one!to!three!years.!!For! negatively!impacts! leads'to'the' construction!and!preservation!of! senior!projects,!the!waiting!list!is! housing!choice!for! affordable!housing!opportunities!for! prevalence'of' three!to!six!months.! families!with! ! families!within!the!City.! discriminatory' children.! ! •! Between!2006!and!2014,!fair! •! Continue!to!engage!with!local! market!rents!for!threeN!and!fourN practices'by' educational!institutions!as!to!how! bedroom!units!grew!76!percent! local'housing' student!housing!needs!negatively! and!58!percent,!respectively!—! providers'who' impact!families!with!children!and! showing!a!higher!increase!than! other!protected!groups!within!the! screen'out' for!any!other!size!unit.! ! City.!!!For!example,!consider! families'with' •! Between!2005!and!2014,!over!17! developing!an!MOU!with!local! children'(and' percent!of!fair!housing!complaints! colleges!and!Universities!that!(1)! other'protected' arising!in!Tompkins!County! restricts!enrolled!students!to!living! alleged!Familial!Status! in!onNcampus!housing!for!at!least! groups)'in'favor' discrimination,!making!it!the! two!years;!(2)!encourages!the! of'single' second!most!frequent!basis.! building!of!additional!onNcampus! ! housing!for!student!populations;! students'for' •! Fair!housing!testing!results! housing.' showed!50!percent!of!Familial! and!(3)!explores!the!viability!of! Status!tests!as!providing! intergenerational!housing!projects! “Evidence”!of!discrimination.!!For! that!meet!the!needs!of!students,! example,!testers!with!children! families,!seniors,!and!disabled! were!repeatedly!told!by!rental! populations.! agents!the!unit!they!were! inquiring!about!was!only!available! to!students.! ! •! Based!on!“Survey!A”!responses,! the!only!type!of!housing!reported! as!being!“more!than!ample”!by!a! sizable!portion!of!Tompkins! County!residents!(44!percent)!is! student!rental!housing.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! diments to Fair Housing Choice ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Analysis of Impe ! City of Ithaca • New York 14 List of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' INDIRECT' WHY'IS'THIS'AN' IMPEDIMENT' OBSERVATIONS' IMPEDIMENT?' OHR'RECOMMENDATIONS' ' ' ' ' ! ! ! NO.'1' •! Based!on!AI!data,!the!fair!market! •! Affordability!is!not,!in! •! Advocate!regionally!for!a!wide!range! ' rents!on!City!units!with!between! itself,!a!fair!housing! of!housing!policies!that!promote! The'City’s'high' one!and!four!bedrooms!have! barrier,!because! housing!development!benefiting! rental'and' increased!by!more!than!50! income!is!not!a! protected!groups,!including! homeownership' percent.! protected!class.!! encouraging!more!housing! ! However,!due!to!the! developments!outside!the!City’s! prices,'as'well'as' •! ACS!data!show!that!a!majority!of! strong!correlation! jurisdiction.! limited'land'and' Ithaca/Tompkins!County!renters! ! public' exceed!what!is!considered! between!income!and! •! Continue!to!advocate!for!increased! having!protected! resources,'have' affordable!in!terms!of!percentage! public!resources!for!housing! of!income!spent!on!housing.!!For! group!status,!such! development!and!operations!from! a'disparate' that!these!protected! example,!approximately!69! HUD!and!other!state!and!federal! impact'on'Ithaca' groups!make!up!a! percent!of!renters!pay!more!than! agencies.! residents'in' disproportionate!part! ! 30!percent!of!their!income!in! protected' •! Explore!every!possible!resource!to! rent.! of!the!City’s!lowN classes'who' ! income!population,! create!new!and!preserve!existing! have'low' •! Based!on!“Survey!A,”!roughly! the!limited!supply!of! supplies!of!affordable!housing.! threeNfourths!of!those!surveyed! ! incomes'by' affordable!units!has! •! Continue!to!engage!with!local! say!there!is!not!enough! limiting'their' the!effect!of! educational!institutions!as!to!how! affordable!housing!(78!percent)!in! housing'options.' restricting!housing! student!housing!needs!negatively! Tompkins!County.!!In!addition,! choice!for!those! impact!families!with!children!and! ' more!than!56!percent!said!that! ' protected!residents.! other!protected!groups!within!the! affordability!was!the!most! City.!!!For!example,!consider! important!consideration!when! developing!an!MOU!with!local! choosing!a!place!to!live.! ! colleges!and!Universities!that!(1)! •! For!IHA!family!sites,!the!waiting! restricts!enrolled!students!to!living! period!is!one!to!three!years.! in!onNcampus!housing!for!at!least! ! two!years;!(2)!encourages!the! •! According!to!AI!data,!affordable! building!of!additional!onNcampus! housing!in!the!City!—!close!to! housing!for!student!populations;! jobs,!shopping,!and!services!—!is! nearly!impossible!for!renters! and!(3)!explores!the!viability!of! using!HCVs!to!secure.! intergenerational!housing!projects! ! that!meet!the!needs!of!students,! •! According!to!the!2014!Housing! families,!seniors,!and!disabled! Survey!Report!conducted!by!the! populations.! ! County’s!Office!for!the!Aging! (COFA),!many!older!adults!have!a! •! The!relationship!between!the!City,! desire!to!“age!in!place”!—!ideally! County,!and!other!local! municipalities!needs!to!be! living!within!the!City!or!Town!of! strengthened!in!order!to!better! Ithaca!in!housing!that!is! affordable,!accessible,!on!a!single! address!the!housing!affordability! floor,!and!with!easy!access!to! concerns!of!its!residents.!!For! public!transportation!and! example,!the!City!should!consider! services.!!However,!the!City’s! creating!a!coordinated!Housing!Task! current!housing!stock!is!not! Force!that!represents!both!the!City! and!County.! affordable!for!seniors!because!it,! ! in!many!cases,!requires!expensive! •! In!order!to!address!problems!related! retrofitting!in!order!to!make!it! to!affordability,!accessibility,!and!the! accessible!for!older!adults!as!they! inability! to! age! in! place,! Ithaca!
age.!!!! residents! need! to! become! more! diments to Fair Housing Choice ! •! The!COFA!Survey!Report!also! comfortable! with! the! concept! of! documents!the!fact!that!local! density! in! housing! in! order! for! residents!are!often!resistant!to! development!to!occur.! new!development!due!to!their! ! discomfort!with!the!concept!of! ! ! density!in!housing.!! !! Analysis of Impe ! City of Ithaca • New York 15 CHAPTER Introduction 2 THE PROJECT
Fair Housing Choice is rooted in the right to live where one Impediments to wants to live without being hindered by discrimination — because Fair Housing Choice neighborhood conditions play a significant role in the life (1) Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken outcomes of every individual. Therefore, the City of Ithaca is because of one’s membership in a committed to providing equal housing opportunities for all its protected class which restrict housing residents. Through the federally-funded Home Investment choices or the availability of housing Partnerships (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant choices. (CDBG) program, as well as other state and local programs, Ithaca (2) Any actions, omissions, or decisions which works to provide a decent living environment for all. have the effect of restricting housing The City’s Consolidated Plan for Housing & Community choices or the availability of housing Development (ConPlan) contains a certification to affirmatively choices on the basis of one’s membership further fair housing (AFFH) which is a pledge to undertake in a protected class. meaningful fair housing planning. The federally protected classes are: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Disability (HUD) suggests that Entitlement Communities, such as the City of • Familial Status Ithaca, conduct fair housing planning at least once every three to • National Origin five years. • Race Fair housing planning consists of three components: (1) to • Color conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), • Religion (2) to identify actions to eliminate any identified impediments, • Sex and (3) to maintain AFFH records. HUD interprets these broad In addition, the State of New York has added objectives to mean: the following protected classes to this list:
• Analyze and work to eliminate housing discrimination;
• Age • Promote fair housing choice for all persons; • Marital Status • Provide opportunities for racially and ethnically-inclusive • Sexual Orientation patterns of housing occupancy; In addition to federal and state protections, • Promote housing that is physically accessible to, and usable Tompkins County local law adds protection by, all persons, particularly persons with disabilities; for Gender Identity and Expression. • Foster compliance with the provisions of the Fair Housing Act. Furthermore, City of Ithaca protections An AI is a comprehensive review of municipal housing, include Height, Weight, Ethnicity, economic, and transportation conditions, as well as public and Immigration/Citizen Status, and private sector policies, in order to ensure that housing choices Socioeconomic Status. and opportunities for all persons in the City are available. This report considers impediments to fair Under the CDBG statute, the AI is a document required by housing choice experienced by only federal diments to Fair Housing Choice HUD. The City must certify to HUD that an AI was conducted and and state protected classes. fair housing action steps are being implemented. Goals and objectives are designed to identify and mitigate obstacles to fair housing choice. Developed to accompany the City of Ithaca’s FY2014 to FY20 18 ConPlan, this AI has been conducted
to comply with the aforementioned mandate. Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 16 2 THE PROJECT Lead Agencies Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)
The City of Ithaca has delegated primary responsibility for administration of the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Programs to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA). Jo Ann Cornish is the City’s Director of Planning and Development and Nels Bohn is the IURA Executive Director. The agency is operated through a five-
member board appointed by the — M.E.T.H.O.D.O.L.O.G.Y — Mayor and approved by the Common Council. The For the purpose of assessing barriers to housing choice in IURA staff of four is directly responsible for program the City of Ithaca, OHR gathered data from the following development, monitoring, and implementation of the research activities: Agency’s five-year Consolidated Plan and associated
•Quantitative Fair Housing Survey (Survey A) Annual Action Plans. The IURA protocols for program •Anecdotal Fair Housing Survey (Survey B) development include City-wide consultation with •Fair Housing Testing Project citizens, neighborhood groups, non-profits, and other •Housing agency data requests governmental agencies. •Data analysis and mapping •Review of existing studies TOMPKINS COUNTY Office of Human Rights (OHR)
In August 2014, the City of Ithaca completed its 2014-2018 OHR was sub-contracted by the IURA to oversee its Five-Year Consolidated Plan (ConPlan). Where possible, Fair Housing data from the City’s ConPlan is used in this AI. In addition, Choice Project every attempt has been made to incorporate the most and provide current data from the 2010 Census and American services related Community Survey (ACS). Other sources of data include: to the completion
•NYS Department of Education of this report. •Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data OHR is a •NYS Division of Human Rights department of Tompkins County, created by the •County Departments of Planning, Social Services, and Tompkins County Legislature in 1963 to address city Office for the Aging and county-wide problems related to racial and •U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development ethnic unrest in the areas of housing, employment, •Tompkins Community Action •Ithaca Housing Authority education, and public accommodation. OHR is charged with providing civil rights enforcement and OHR’s approach to this AI is based on the methodologies outreach training. recommended in HUD’s “Fair Housing Planning Guide,” Karen Baer, OHR’s Director of Human Rights, Vol. 1 and its recently published “Notice of Proposed managed this Fair Housing Choice project. In addition Rulemaking on AFFH,” October 2014. to Karen’s expertise related to Title VII enforcement and outreach programming, she is a specialist in the field of fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) protocols. She was responsible for drafting the fair housing law in Geneva, New York, which was certified by HUD in 2005 as being substantially equivalent to the Fair diments to Fair Housing Choice Housing Act — designating Geneva as having the first and only city-based Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) in New York State. In addition to her long-term working relationship with HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), Karen has participated in dozens of FHEO National Policy Conference trainings, including the National Fair Housing
Training Academy in Washington D.C. Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 17 THE PROJECT Participation 2 Community Participation
Impediments (2007 -2013) To collect the information needed for this AI, In 2007, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) conducted OHR relied on assistance from numerous the City’s most recent Analysis of Impediments. The IURA governmental offices, non-profit agencies, found no “significant barriers to fair housing in the City of private institutions, and members of the public. Ithaca” but noted the following problems: The assistance and information provided to OHR
(1) Lack of affordable housing and by way of data requests was vital in creating a (2) Uncoordinated record keeping systems by local agencies, document that properly reflected fair housing making data on fair housing complaints difficult to obtain choice in Ithaca, NY.
and assess. In addition, a broad collection of community
Resulting Action Items members were able to participate by completing one of two surveys: As a result of the City’s 2007 AI process, it committed to undertake the following actions: Quantitative Survey (Survey A) This survey was conducted by WBA Research and (1) Continuing fair housing education and outreach activities, (2) Translating fair housing brochures into additional was sent by mail to a list of 4,000 randomly languages, and selected Tompkins County residents, in which (3) Expanding the number of agencies and individuals City residents were oversampled by a 3:2 margin. receiving fair housing materials. Number of Responses: 727 Residents
Since 2007, the IURA has allocated over $4,436,373 to Anecdotal Survey (Survey B) affordable housing projects and programs within the City of To complete this qualitative fair housing survey, Ithaca. This includes new construction of owner and renter OHR staff reached out to local human service occupied housing, security deposit assistance, home repairs institutions, including social service agencies, the and weatherization, and a tenant-based rental assistance public library, credit unions, non-profit groups, program. homeless shelters, and community kitchens to collect survey responses. Number of Responses: 116 Residents
Agencies Participating in the AI Project
WBA Research, Inc. • Fair Housing Council of Central NY • Alternatives Federal Credit Union • Cornell Cooperative Extension Association • Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County • Ithaca Free Clinic Ithaca Housing Authority • Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services • Legal Assistance of Western New York Loaves and Fishes Lunch Program • NYS Division of Human Rights • Rescue Mission • Tompkins County Departments of Health, Social Services, Mental Health, Planning, and Office for the Aging • Tompkins County Public Library • Tompkins Community Action • U.S. Department of HUD/FHEO • Women’s Opportunity Center diments to Fair Housing Choice Analysis of Impe
City of Ithaca • New York 18 CHAPTER
3
OVERVIEW
The City of Ithaca – A Great Place to Live, Learn, Work, and Play*
Nestled in the beautiful Finger Lakes region of upstate New York, Ithaca’s natural beauty is unmatched — highlighted by its rolling hills, Cayuga Lake, breathtaking gorges, and cascading waterfalls. A community of artists, writers, performers, along with some of the world’s leading scientists and researchers, Ithaca boasts an environment that values creativity, intellect, achievement, and success. Theater and the arts abound in the region, and local eateries serve up a diversity of ethnic cuisines. Ithaca is a very active and energetic community with outdoor recreation and sport choices for each of the four seasons. Ithaca’s downtown features a vibrant
pedestrian mall, one of only a few left in the Ithaca At A Glance country. With an eclectic mix of retail, food and beverage, business, and the arts, it is considered Population: 30,014 the cultural and political heart of the City. Total Households: 10,594 Home to Cornell University, Ithaca College and Tompkins Cortland Community College, Renter-Occupied Housing: 73.6% education is a major, but by no means Ithaca’s Families Below Poverty: 14.1% only, industry. These three internationally Families w/Kids Below Poverty: 21.4% known and highly respected institutions of higher Median Age: 22.4 learning provide unmatched professional and personal development opportunities. Most Livable City by MSN Real Estate There is something in Ithaca for everyone. Best College Town by AIER College Index
Best NY Art Spot by Huffington Post
Must-Visit Wine Tour Spot by ABC News
Greatest Places to Live by Kiplinger’s Magazine
Smartest City in American by Lumosity Most Secure Place to Live by Farmer’s
Best City for Work-Life Balance by NerdWallet.com
Top Walk-to-Work City by MSN Real Estate *Excerpted from City of Ithaca’s official Website Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 19
3 OVERVIEW Geography
Lake Tompkins County Cayuga
Ithaca
City of Ithaca • Tompkins County • New York Population: 30,014
The City of Ithaca is located in Central New York and is the county seat of Tompkins County, as well as the largest community in Tompkins County. It is named for the Greek island of Ithaca. The City of Ithaca is largely defined by its location in a valley at the southern end of Cayuga Lake and by the presence of Cornell University on Ithaca’s East Hill and Ithaca College on its South Hill. Nearby is Tompkins Cortland Community College (TC3). These three colleges influence Ithaca’s seasonal population. In 2010, the City’s population was 30,014 — the metropolitan area had a population of 101,564. Ithaca is connected regionally by State Highways 13, 79, 89, and 96 to cities such as
Syracuse, Rochester, Elmira/Corning, and Binghamton. Immediately beyond the City of Ithaca is the
Town of Ithaca, which encompasses the city as the Surrounds
landscape changes from urban to rural. Ithaca Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
20 City of Ithaca • New York 20 1
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Introduction
Student-Impact Alert Take Note While Reading this Report
The City of Ithaca has long been associated with Cornell University and Ithaca College — two major academic institutions that also represent the largest employers in Tompkins County and the region. As a result, Ithaca’s population is more highly educated than state or national averages, a likely factor leading to Ithaca being ranked No. 1 by Lumosity as the “Smartest City in America.” The current enrollment at these two major institutions totals 27,793, with high levels of student populations residing in Tracts 2, 6, 11, and Figure 1. City of Ithaca Census Tract Map 13 (Figure 1). Not surprisingly, a high proportion of Ithaca The 2010 Census indicates that the City of Ithaca’s population is residents are in the 18-24 year-old age group, and primarily Caucasian with a measured presence of Asian, Black, Latino, the greatest percent of persons of color (especially and multiracial populations. Since the year 2000, however, Asian-Americans) are connected with the academic Caucasian populations of the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, and institutions. Tompkins County have all decreased while other populations have The overwhelming presence of student grown (Figures 2, 3, and 4). populations also tends to unduly impact data Black/African-American. Despite a population increase of over 10 related to individual poverty rates. As it will be percent in Tompkins County, the Black population of the City has noted below, poverty rates of individuals are actually decreased while the surrounding Town of Ithaca experienced severely inflated because students often report a greater than 40 percent increase in its Black population. To wit, the zero income while being financially supported by Black population still remains concentrated within the City (6.5 outsides sources such as parents or loans. percent) compared to the County’s Black population (4 percent). It is It should also be noted that when it comes to interesting to note that while the City’s Black population hovers housing choice, disproportionate student around 6.5 percent, Census Tract 10 (Southside, West End, and part populations may lead to additional hardships for of the West Hill neighborhood) is 22 percent Black or African- non-student populations; in particular, families American. with children and low-income households wanting Hispanic/Latino. The Hispanic populations have both increased to live within City limits. City and County wide through 2010 in relatively even geographic Furthermore, because landlords may have an distributions. Persons of Hispanic Origin are strongly concentrated in interest in profiting from a student-based rental Census Tracts 6, 8, and 9, which cover portions of the Fall Creek, market, they may be less eager to participate in West Hill, and Northside neighborhoods. Section 8 and other housing subsidy programs. Asian. The greatest proportion of Asian residents is in Census
Tracts 2, 6, and 13, all of which are residential neighborhoods Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 21 2
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Introduction (con’t) adjacent to Cornell University. Notably, a non- student Asian population resides in the City’s 100% 3.4 4.3 Northside neighborhood or Census Tract 8. This 5.3 6.9 2+ Races population is largely composed of immigrants from 90% 13.7 Hispanic Southeast Asia and is socially and economically 16.2 80% Asian distinct from the Asian student population. 6.7 College Impact. Both the topography of the City 70% 6.5 Black and the location of Cornell University influence the White 74 housing patterns of Ithaca’s student population that 60% 70.5 is more racially diverse than the City as a whole. 50% For example, Cornell University is situated on East 2000 2010 Hill, giving the adjacent neighborhoods of Figure 2. City of Ithaca Demographic Percentages Collegetown (Census Tract 2), Cornell Heights (Census Tract 6), and Belle Sherman (Census Tract 13) relatively high Asian populations which reflects the housing patterns of Cornell’s international 100% 2.3 3.2 3.1 composition of students and professors. 4.2 7.2 90% 8.6 3.6 2+ Races 4 80% Hispanic Table 1. City of Ithaca Demographic Populations Asian 70% Black 85.5 82.6 RACE NUMBER White 60% White 21,172 50% Black 1,971 2000 2010
Asian 4,854 Figure 3. Tompkins County Demographic Percentages
Hispanic 2,057
60% 2+ Races 1,297 City of Ithaca Tompkins County Town of Ithaca 54%
50%
41% Table 2. Tompkins County Demographic Populations 39% 40% 35% RACE NUMBER 30% 29% 30% 26% 24% White 83,941 19% 20% 18% Black 4,020 11% Asian 8,737 10% -5% -3% -6% -3% Hispanic 4,264 0% White Black Asian Hispanic 2+ Races 2+ Races 3,286 -10%
Figure 4. Percent of Change in Population by Race 2000-2010 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
22 City of Ithaca • New York 22 12
OVERVIEW Demographics 3 Index of Dissimilarity (I/D)
One of the key components of fair housing analyses is an Based on a 2009 Brown University study,* a higher I/D number examination of the concentration of different races and indicates a higher degree of segregation, while lower numbers ethnicities within a jurisdiction in order to detect evidence indicate a more even distribution between groups: of segregation. In some cases, racial and ethnic concentrations are a reflection of preferences — e.g., Level of Segregation Index of Dissimilarity people of different races and ethnicities may choose to live Very High above 50 where they have access to grocery stores or restaurants Moderate 30%-50% that cater to them. In other cases, different race/ethnic Low 0% to 30%
populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged For Ithaca, the highest level of residential segregation is from living in certain areas. Housing prices can also heavily between Black populations (which are largely concentrated in influence where populations of color live. the Southside and West Hill neighborhoods) and Asian Research methods used to assess segregation patterns populations (which are largely concentrated in neighborhoods include analyzing the most recent census data (2010) and adjacent to Cornell University and on the City’s Northside). using the most common statistical indices — dissimilarity, Ithaca’s Black-Asian I/D is considered Moderate at 40.2, interaction, and isolation. meaning that 40.2 percent of Black people would need to A key index used by HUD to determine racial and ethnic move to another neighborhood to make Blacks and Asians concentrations across a geographic area has been the Index evenly distributed. of Dissimilarity (I/D). The I/D measures the relative In general, Ithaca has comparatively lower levels of separation or integration of groups across all residential segregation — with 28 percent of Black people and neighborhoods of a city or metropolitan area. To wit, if a 29 percent of Asian people needing to move in order to be city’s White-Hispanic I/D were 65, that would mean that 65 perfectly integrated with the City’s White population. Ithaca’s percent of White people would need to move to another Hispanic population is the most evenly distributed racial group, neighborhood to make White and Hispanics evenly having an I/D of 15.2, 22.4, and 21.2 with White, Black, and distributed across all neighborhoods. Asian populations, respectively (See Figure 5).
*Brown University American Communities Project (2010) 59 60 53
Black:White Hispanic:White Asian:White 50 47 46
40 Black:Hispanic Black:Asian Hispanic:Asian 40 38 35 31 29 28 28 28 30 26 22 21 21 22 20 17 17 15 16
11 11 9 10
0 Ithaca (Pop. 30,014) Syracuse (Pop 145,170) Cortland (Pop 19,204) Elmira (Pop 29,200)
Figure 5. Indices of Dissimilarity/Sister-City Demographic Comparisons Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 23
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Populations of Color
Background. Forty-seven years ago, the U.S. Congress passed Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, on April 10, 1968, just six (6) days after the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis. The Act made it illegal to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing on the grounds of Race, Color, Religion, or National Origin.
The primary purpose for this AI research is to measure how successful the City of Ithaca has been in eliminating those historical barriers to fair housing choice for its residents, all while helping to build a fair housing strategy for the future.
The following figures display the geographic distribution of Ithaca’s largest minority groups, highlighting areas of racial and ethnic concentrations.
ASIAN Ithaca’s largest minority population is Asian, representing 16 percent of City residents. The population is bifurcated and can broadly be defined in two groups — a largely East Asian and South Asian population affiliated with Cornell University and South East Asian refugee populations. Census Tracks 2, 4, 6, and 13 are adjacent to Cornell University (Tract 3) and are home to Ithaca’s Chinese, Korean, and Indian residents (Figure 6). Low- income housing (public and private) are located primarily within Census Tracts 8 and 10, which generally house Ithaca’s Burmese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese populations.
Figure 6. Percent Asian by Census Tract
HISPANIC ORIGIN Persons of Hispanic Origin represent 7 percent of Ithaca’s population. Hispanic groups are slightly concentrated in Census Tract 8, which contains the majority of the City’s non-senior public housing units and Census Tract 6, where several multi-family apartment complexes catering to student and low- income mixes of populations are located (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Percent Hispanic by Census Tract Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
24 City of Ithaca • New York 24
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Populations of Color (con’t)
AFRICAN-AMERICAN The City of Ithaca’s Black or African-American population is 6.5 percent — primarily residing in Census Tract 1 (downtown) and Census Tract 10 (Southside, Southwest, and West Hill) (Figure 8). Despite their lower overall City presence, Census Tract 10 is over 22 percent Black or African-American, rendering it 267 percent more concentrated with Black residents than the City at large.
Figure 8. Percent African-American by Census Tract
Figure 9. Percent White by Census Tract
CAUCASIAN The City of Ithaca is predominantly white, with a relatively even distribution across census tracts. White residents are least concentrated in Census Tracts 10 (Southside, Southwest, West Hill) and 13 (Belle Sherman), which have a relatively high concentration of African-American and Asian residents, respectively (Figure 9).
TWO OR MORE RACES Approximately 3 percent of City residents identify as being two or more races. People who identify as such tend to be Figure 10. Percent Two or More Races by Census Tract represented evenly throughout the City (Figure 10). Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 25 12
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Limited English Proficient Populations Individuals who do not speak English as their primary TABLE 3. LEP Populations in the City of Ithaca* language and who have a limited ability to read, write, Language Spoken Speaking English speak, or understand English are limited English proficient At Home Is Other Multi-Lingual/English "Less Than Very Well" Than English or “LEP.” This language barrier can lead to National Origin
discrimination, create limitations when it comes to fair housing choice, or otherwise prevent LEP individuals from 16.7% 27.4% 4.3% accessing City services and benefits. In the City of Ithaca, three pieces of legislation exist that Complaint Form” and “Title VI Commons Tracking and Summary provide the foundation for an LEP Plan: (1) Title VI of the Form.” Civil Rights Act of 1964, (2) Executive Order 13166, and (3) The City’s LEP Plan does not reasonably address whether an Ithaca Common Council Resolution 11.2, dated 3 April 2013. LAP has been developed, nor does it suggest that LEP individuals Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal law have an expectation that language interpretation and that protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of translation services shall be offered to them free of charge. their Race, Color, Religion, or National Origin in programs In a community, such as Ithaca, comprised of people from that receive federal financial assistance. Compliance with diverse cultural and social backgrounds, making outreach to LEP Title VI requires that recipients of federal dollars provide populations should be a priority. language assistance to LEP individuals. Otherwise, failure to In Tompkins County, languages other than English are ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in, or spoken in 16 percent of households (Table 3). In the category of benefit from, federally-assisted programs may violate Title those speaking English "less than very well" are the following: VI’s prohibition against National Origin discrimination. As a recipient of federal funds (e.g., HUD, Department of • Spanish: 22 percent in category/630pp Transportation, Federal Transit Authority, Homeland • Asian/Pacific Islander: 35 percent in category/6,380pp Security, etc.), the City of Ithaca is mandated to provide LEP • Indo-European: 12 percent in category/723pp individuals who inquire and qualify for its services with free • Other Languages: 21 percent in category/152pp
interpretation and translation services. Translation Services: Languages of need in Tompkins County In 2007, HUD issued guidance to help federal-assistance include Burmese, French, Korean, Japanese, Mandarin, Russian, recipients understand their obligations to serve individuals and Spanish. However, no single LEP-spoken language in the with LEP. HUD suggests federal-assistance recipients City of Ithaca meets the federal threshold of 5 percent of the conduct an analysis to determine how to best service LEP general population or 1,000 persons. Therefore, the City is not
individuals; develop a Language Assistance Plan (LAP); and required, in broad terms, to translate “vital documents” into provide appropriate language assistance to LEP individuals. languages that do not meet the above threshold. An LAP is a recipient’s developed strategy for how they intend to serve LEP individuals in their communities. Interpretation Services: No threshold applies to the federal requirement that the City provide free interpretation services to The City of Ithaca approved an LEP Plan in January 2013, the language of which characterizes the foregoing LEP individuals inquiring or qualifying for City projects, services and programs. mandates as being applicable solely to the “Commons Repair and Upgrade Project” for which the City received * LEP Data Sources: (1) American Community Survey, 2009-2011 FTA funding in 2013. So, although the City receives a Data Set, (2) American Community Survey, 2008-2010 Data Set, (3) 2010 Census and Ithaca City School District data. variety of federal funding (including HUD dollars), its LEP Plan suggests that the City’s obligation to provide language assistance to LEP individuals is a project-specific mandate and not a general obligation in terms of other City projects, services, and programs. Further indication of this is manifested in the City’s complaint and tracking forms used to report issues related to LEP-compliance. For example, the complaint form is entitled, “Title VI Commons Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
26 City of Ithaca • New York 26
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Families with Children Background. Twenty years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, Congress passed the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, a law that significantly expanded the scope of the original legislation and strengthened its enforcement mechanisms. These 1988 Amendments also brought within its protection two additional groups, making it illegal to discriminate against “Families with Children” and against persons with “Physical or Mental Disabilities.”
Under the Act, “Familial Status” means the makeup of a family unit. It may include children under the age of eighteen who are living with their parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people who are seeking to secure custody of children under eighteen. There are a myriad of reasons why families with children may experience discrimination when searching for housing. Often, children are perceived as a disruptive influence on an otherwise “quiet” area or building, or are seen as a bad fit if the property or neighborhood caters to the student population. While a rental agent or landlord may believe they are expressing appropriate concern for a family with children, any action that denies the family an opportunity to obtain housing based on the presence of children may be discriminatory.
Since the year 2000, the City of Ithaca and 4% Tompkins County have experienced a decline in 1.5% Family Households 2% the number of family households and a small 0% W/ Children under 18 increase in non-family households (Figure 11). -2% Within the City, families with children under 18 -4% Single female HoH w/ and single female heads of household with -4% -6% Children under 18 children under 18 decreased by 9 percent and 12 -8% Nonfamily households percent, respectively. The Town of Ithaca had significant growth in both families with children -10% -9% Average household under 18 and single female heads of household -12% size -12% with children under 18 despite having an overall -14% decrease in family households (Figure 12). Figure 11. Changes in Family Composition (City of Ithaca) 2000-2010
20% Family Households 15%
10% W/ Children under 18 19% 5% Single female HoH w/ 3% 2% 2% Children under 18 5% 0% Nonfamily households -9% -3% -5% -2% -2% -4% -12%
-10% -12% Tompkins County City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca -15%
Figure 12. Changes in Family Comparison 2000-2010 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 27
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Persons with Disabilities Background. With protections based on Disability now included in the Table 4. Populations with Sensory Disabilities in Tompkins County* Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, builders of housing are now required to ensure accessibility in certain units, and landlords and Tompkins County condominium associations must make reasonable accommodations to meet the needs of disabled tenants. Total population 100,691 The federal Act defines Disability as “Any person who has a physical Total % with disabilities 9.8% or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having Total % with sensory disabilities 4.2% such an impairment.” Persons under 5 years of age Persons with disabilities face many challenges when it comes to obtaining housing. For example, housing built before the advent of With hearing difficulty 16 (.4%) accessibility standards is often inaccessible to persons with mobility With vision difficulty 33 (.8%) disabilities. Persons having mental disabilities that make living independently difficult may be perceived as troublesome tenants and Persons 5-17 years of age be denied the opportunity to secure housing opportunities. While a With hearing difficulty 101 (.9%) rental agent or landlord may believe they are expressing concern when they inquire into whether a person with a disability is able to live With vision difficulty 42 (.4%) independently, any action that denies housing based on that concern Persons 18-64 years of age may be discriminatory. With hearing difficulty 1,082 (1.5%) In Tompkins County, nearly 10 percent of residents identify With vision difficulty 752 (1.0%) themselves as being either mentally or physically disabled (Figure 13). Within that group, less than .5 percent of Persons 64+ years of age persons under the age of five (5) years are hearing With hearing difficulty 1,560 (14.5%) impaired, and nearly 1 percent are vision impaired (Table 4). It can be further calculated that 4 percent of persons in With vision difficulty 626 (5.8%) Tompkins County are hearing and/or visually impaired. The *American Community Survey 2008-2012 Data Set remaining 6 percent have other kinds of disabilities.
*American Community Survey 2008-2012 Data Set 25% 21% 19% 20%
15% 5 to 17 11% 9% 10% 10% 18 to 64 7% 7% 65 and over 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cogni ve Ambulatory Self-care difficulty Independent Difficulty Difficulty Living difficulty
Figure 13. Percent Disabled in Tompkins County by Disability Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
28 City of Ithaca • New York 28 12
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Older Adults
2014 Housing Preferences Survey Report According to the 2010 Census, there was a 34 percent increase Conducted by Tompkins County in Tompkins County’s 60+ population (from 11,967 people in Office for the Aging (COFA) 2000 to 16,042 people in 2010). This increase is largely
attributable to the leading edge of the Baby Boomers reaching
— Methodology — the age of 60. A closer look finds that between 2000 and 2010, there was an 89 percent increase in the population ages 60-64. This survey was made available on line and through Based on COFA’s 2012 Senior Needs Assessment Survey, paper copy. Additionally, the survey was distributed 60+ Baby Boomers are actively employed, socially engaged, own widely at a Senior Housing Expo, and jointly sponsored their homes, drive themselves, and have relatively few long- by COFA and the Ithaca College Gerontology Institute in term care needs. There is every indication this will change over May 2014. There were 331 responses to the survey, time. with the average age of responders being 67 years. The The 60+ population will continue to increase in the coming survey pool was not a random sample, but was rather decades, peaking at approximately 21,590 people in 2030. The targeted to seniors in general. 85+ population will increase 54 percent from 1,252 in 2000 to
— Results —
• Nearly 50 percent of respondents plan to move in Table 5. Tompkins County Population Trends the next 1-5 years. Another 31 percent plan to 2000-2040 move in the next 5-10 years and 20 percent in the next 10-15 years. Year 0-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85+ • Respondents’ top reason for moving is to reduce 2000 84,534 2,710 4,637 3,368 1,252 maintenance and upkeep/downsizing.
• Ninety (90) percent of respondents plan to stay in 2010 85,522 5,113 5,711 3,421 1,797 Tompkins County when they move. Of these, 57 2020 82,699 4,929 8,452 3,947 1,705 percent plan to move to the City of Ithaca and 19 2030 81,303 4,159 9,720 5,756 1,955 percent to the Town of Ithaca.
• Respondents were asked into what type of 2040 80,059 3,838 6,526 5,462 2,721 housing they plan to move, and the most Source: U.S. Census/Cornell Program on Applied Demographics
frequently cited response was senior housing 2,721 in 2040. The table above is a projection of Tompkins complex, followed by condominium and County’s population based on age, with the bolded cells apartment. highlighting where the peaks in population growth will take • The top three factors that respondents place by age cohort (Table 5). considered when thinking about housing were (1) The growth of this demographic has tremendous single floor design; (2) affordable cost (with home implications for the future of housing needs in the County. For ownership costing between $150,000 and example, the COFA 2012 Report also indicates that 88 percent $250,000/rental costs between $500 and $1000); of older adults are homeowners; and of these homeowners, and (3) easy access to services and one-third stated that their home was in need of a major repair transportation. and 38 percent indicated that the cost of that repair was
• Consistent themes repeated throughout narrative prohibitive. Additionally, 13 percent said that they were comments included (1) the need for affordable planning to move within the next five (5) years, and of those housing options located downtown in the City of intending to move, 63 percent indicated that they wanted to Ithaca, close to services and transportation; (2) stay in Tompkins County. the lack of housing options for the middle class; To view COFA’s 2012 Senior Needs Assessment, 2014 Housing and (3) the desire for condominiums. Preferences Survey, and 2015 Strategic Plan for Aging in their entirety, please visit www.tompkinscountyny.gov/cofa. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 29 12
3 OVERVIEW Demographics Homeless Populations
The Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count is a snap shot of the Emergency Sheltered (ES) and Transitionally Housed (TH) Tompkins County’s Homeless population during a designated For ES and TH populations, a census chart was sent out overnight period, usually taking place the last week in January. requesting names of individuals and families staying at local sites The annual process provides a census of homeless persons in the night of the PIT Count, along with demographic information. the (1) emergency shelters, (2) transitional housing, and in (3) Also, surveys went out to various agencies around the County unsheltered environments (Figure 14). that could be completed within one week of the PIT Count date, In fact, a PIT Count is required at a minimum of once a so that data could be collected about the “Literally Homeless,” year by HUD for communities receiving funding through the “Imminently Homeless” and the “Unstably Housed.” Continuum of Care (CoC) — providing the CoC with (1) the opportunity to take an annual documentation of the number of homeless persons in the winter and (2) an ability to cross 120 109 100 check and validate the quality of data maintained in the 91 86 89 Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). 80 2013 54 A PIT Count also documents the following: (1) number of 60 2014 current homeless persons in the County and the location they 47 40 are staying; (2) number of homeless individuals and the 2015 20 number of homeless families; and (3) number of homeless persons designated in special populations, e.g. chronically 0 HUD PIT Homeless HUD PIT County Community PIT Count ALL Homeless homeless, severely mentally ill, etc.
Figure 14. Total Homeless Populations Tompkins County HUD PIT Count vs. Community PIT Count
The HUD PIT Count only documents those persons who are For the HUD PIT Count, there was an overall increase of 37 “Literally Homeless” which includes (unsheltered + sheltered) homeless persons. This may reflect (1) an increase in Rescue populations. The Community PIT Count also includes Mission bed capacity; (2) number of homeless families housed “Imminently Homeless” and “Unstably Housed” populations. by DSS in motels; and (3) number of persons housed by Advocacy Center (Figure 14). Definitions of Homelessness For the Community PIT Count, there was an overall increase of 20 homeless persons, possibly reflecting increases in ES and a Literally Homeless: Living in a place not meant for decrease in “Imminently Homeless” and “Unstably Housed” habitation, e.g. car, abandoned building, laundromat, etc. populations.
Imminently Homeless: Eviction in fourteen (14) or fewer days.
Unstably Housed (e.g., couch surfing): Two or more moves in less than 60 days.
The most recent Tompkins County PIT Count was conducted the evening of January 29, 2015, from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.
The Unsheltered. For the unsheltered, an outreach group of local service providers and community members went to likely places where individuals may be staying to conduct interviews in order to determine their housing status.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
30 City of Ithaca • New York 30
3 OVERVIEW Demographics PIT Count Observations
35 29 The increase in the number of unsheltered literally 26 30 homeless (2014 & 2015) may largely be due to 25 19 19 2013 improved outreach during the PIT Count process. 20 15 13 15 The changes in the number of Imminently 8 2014 10 6 Homeless and Unstably Housed persons may be due, in 3 5 2015 part, to prevention efforts in the community and/or 0 variation in sampling methods (Figure 15). Literally Homeless Imminent Unstably Housed Homelessness
Figure 15. Categories of Homeless Populations
12 10 10 8 6 In 2015, the number of unsheltered persons with 6 5 5 2013 4 chronic substance abuse problems increased while 4 3 3 2 2 2014 there was a decrease in the number of persons 2 1 1 0 2015 reporting severe mental health problems (Figure 0 16). Chronic Severe Chronically Veteran Substance Mental Homeless Abuse Health
Figure 16. UNSHELTERED Characteristics
14 12 12 The number of sheltered persons with 10 8 8 6 6 2013 severe mental health issues increased 6 4 4 significantly (Figure 17), with the 3 4 2 2014 1 1 majority of these persons being housed 2 0 0 2015 at the Rescue Mission. 0 Chronic Severe Chronically Veteran Substance Mental Homeless Abuse Health
Figure 17. SHELTERED Characteristics
60 52 50 40 There was an increase in the number of 27 2013 30 25 homeless children, largely reflecting an increase 19 20 13 2014 in the number of homeless families (Figure 18). 11 10 8 10 3 0 0 2015 0 Persons in Individuals UnAcc Total ES Families w/ Youth <18 Children
Figure 18. SHELTERED Groups Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 31
OVERVIEW Demographics PIT Count Observations (con’t) 3
Homelessness — PIT Count Observations Transi onally-Housing Projects
30 26 The changes in Learning Web Transitional Housing 25 reflect changes in funding over time. As funding 20 increases, so does capacity (Figures 19 and 20). Tompkins County • City of Ithaca 20 15 16 2013 Collected — January 29, 2015, from 7 p.m. to 7 14 15 p.m. January 30, 2015 11 2014 10 8 8 6 2015 5
0 Learning Web TCAc on Total TH
Figure 19. TRANSITIONALLY-HOUSED Projects
Transi onally-Housed Groups (TH)
30 26 25 19 20 20 16 2013 15 12 10 2014 10 7 6 4 2015 5 3 1 0 0 Persons in Individuals UnAcc Youth Total TH Families <18
Figure 20. TRANSITIONALLY-HOUSED Groups
Sheltered Sites Across all categories there was an increase in the 60 52 number of all homeless persons for both the HUD 50 PIT Count and the Community PIT Count, 40 reflecting the increased number of persons 28 2013 requiring emergency shelters (Figure 21). 30 19 13 15 13 20 9 2014 8 5 10 3 1 2 2015 0 Red Cross Advocacy DSS Total ES For more information about the annual PIT Count or about Rescue Center homelessness in Tompkins County/Ithaca in general, please visit Mission CHART ??: the Human Services Coalition website at www.hsctc.org. Individual Poverty Rates by Race/Ethnicity Figure 21. SHELTERED Sites Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
32 City of Ithaca • New York 32 Transi onally-Housed Loca ons (TH)
30 26 25 20 20 16 2013 15 14 15 11 2014 10 8 8 6 2015 5
0 Learning Web TCAc on Total TH
OVERVIEW Poverty Rate 3 Individuals and Families
“Too many Ithacans are having a hard time making ends meet, and the growth we’ve experienced has left too many behind. A report by the U.S. Conference of Mayor’s points out that, ‘if average income rises at a faster pace than median income, it usually indicates that more and more income is being concentrated among the richer households.’ Economic wealth distribution since 2007 in the Ithaca area has been uneven with a shift in wealth towards upper-income households. From 2005 to 2012 the mean household income for the Ithaca area (Tompkins County) increased by 37 percent, while the median household income only increased by 15 percent. Ithaca ranks 2nd out of all 363 metropolitan areas in this ratio change, meaning income wealth is being shifted to upper income households at a faster rate in Ithaca than almost anywhere else in the nation. Lower and middle income households are failing to keep up with overall income growth.” (Mayor Svante L. Myrick, 2015 State of the City Address). Figure 23. Individual Poverty Rate by Census Tract
50% Student Impact Alert — Due to the presence of Cornell 45% 45% University and Ithaca College, a large proportion of City residents are undergraduate students. Accordingly, the 40% highest concentration of individuals below the poverty level is 35% 31% White in areas highly populated by Cornell University and Ithaca 30% Black College students (Figure 22). A more reliable indicator of 25% poverty in the City is the percent of families below the poverty Asian 20% level (Table 6 and Figure 23). 15% 15% 2+ Races 15% 9% Hispanic 10% Table 6. Poverty Rates: Individual vs. Family 5% Families 0% Individuals below % Families Below poverty Level below poverty Race poverty level level Figure 22. Family Poverty Rates by Race/Ethnicity White 40.6% 9.1% Black 58.6% 45.3% Major differences exist between the rate of poverty for individuals and for Asian 63.0% 30.5% families, especially within the Black and 2+ Races 34.0% 15.2% Asian populations (Table 6). Hispanic 49.8% 15.2%
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 33
OVERVIEW Public School Profiles School Boundaries 3
The Ithaca City School District is composed of twelve schools and serves 5,365 students (Figure 24). There are four elementary schools in the City of Ithaca: Beverly J. Martin, Belle Sherman, Fall Creek, and South Hill. Students at Beverly J. Martin Elementary come from the Northside (Census Tract 8), Downtown (Census Tract 1), West Hill neighborhoods (portion of Census Tract 10), and also a portion of neighborhoods adjacent to Cornell (Census Tract 6). Students at Fall Creek Elementary primarily come from the Fall Creek neighborhood (Census Tract 7), and South Side neighborhoods (portion of Census Tract 10). South Hill Elementary students come from the South Hill neighborhood within the City (Census Tract 11), and also from the Town of Ithaca and Danby, two municipalities situated south of the City.
Belle Sherman students come from a portion of the South Side (portion of Figure 24. ICSD Elementary School Boundaries Census Tract 10), Collegetown (Census Tract 2), Belle Sherman (Census Tract 13), and Forest Home which is located in the Town of Ithaca.
Open Enrollment Policy Ithaca City School District offers limited school choice through its Open Enrollment Program, allowing families to apply to enroll their children in a school other than their zoned school.
The granting of Open Enrollment is dependent upon space availability and current and future staffing considerations at the requested building. Requests are not granted if the requested school does not offer the service programs that are needed by the student (i.e.: ESOL or Special Education); KEY: and parents/guardians must provide all transportation to and from their child's open enrolled school. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
34 City of Ithaca • New York 34
3 OVERVIEW Public School Profiles School District Demographics
Enrollment statistics show a concentration of Black and Hispanic students at Beverly J. Martin (Figure 25). Additionally, Beverly J. Martin has approximately twice as many students eligible for a free lunch as Belle Sherman, Fall Creek, and South Hill.
90% Beverly J. Mar n 81% 78% 80% Belle Sherman
70% Fall Creek 62% 60% South Hill 48% 50% 50%
40% 30% 26% 30% 21% 20% 10% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 10% 4% 5% 3% 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% % Am. Indian/ Black/African Hispanic La no Asian/Na ve White Mul racial Alaska Na ve American Hawaiian
Figure 25. ICSD Elementary School Demographics
Academic Performance The resulting academic performance at elementary schools within the City of Ithaca indicates significant discrepancies between Beverly J. Martin and the three other schools. Relative to their peers at Fall Creek, South Hill, and Belle Sherman, the students at Beverly J. Martin elementary school, located in the Northside neighborhood, score substantially lower on State English Language Arts (ELA) and math tests (Table 7).
Table 7. ICSD Elementary School Scoring
Student/Teacher NYS Math NYS English GreatSchools.com Elementary School Ratio Scores Scores Ranking
Beverly J. Martin 8:1 0.28 0.13 4 Belle Sherman 11:1 0.79 0.53 9 Fall Creek 11:1 0.54 0.28 9 South Hill 9:1 0.70 0.53 9 Northeast* 11:1 0.86 0.54 10 Cayuga Heights* 13:1 0.77 0.65 9 Caroline* 13:1 0.51 0.38 7 Enfield* 8:1 0.26 0.11 3 *ICSD Elementary Schools located outside the City Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 35
OVERVIEW Public School Profiles Academic Performance/Reduced Lunch 3
50% 46% 50% 38% 40%
30% 20%
20%
10%
0% Beverly J. Mar n Belle Sherman Fall Creek South Hill
Figure 26. ELA Proficient
66% 62% 70% 49% 60% 50% 33% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Beverly J. Belle Fall Creek South Hill Mar n Sherman
Figure 27. MATH Proficient
63% 70% 60% 50% 29% 31% 40% 21% 30% 20% 10% 0% Beverly J. Belle Fall Creek South Hill Mar n Sherman
Figure 28. Free and Reduced Price Lunch Students Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
36 City of Ithaca • New York 36
OVERVIEW Public School Profiles 3 Demographics by School
19% LEP Populations 20% 14% The ICSD designates three elementary 15% schools to receive students with 10% Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Two 5% of those schools, Beverly J. Martin 0% 0% and Belle Sherman are located 0% within the City of Ithaca (Figure 29). Beverly J. Belle Fall Creek South Hill Mar n Sherman
Figure 29. Limited English Proficient (LEP)
0% Beverly J. Martin Elementary % Am. Indian/Alaska Na ve students come from Northside, 10% Downtown, and West Hill 22% Black/African American Neighborhoods. Approximately 19 Hispanic La no percent of students at Beverly J. Martin tested as proficient in their 13% Asian/Na ve Hawaiian ELA Assessments for the 2013-2014 45% White school year (Figure 30). 10% Mul racial
Figure 30. Beverly J. Martin Elementary Demographics
0% 4% Belle Sherman Elementary % Am. Indian/Alaska Na ve students come from three 8% Black/African American neighborhoods in the City of Ithaca: a 21% very small section of South Side, 50% Hispanic La no Collegetown, and Belle Sherman. Asian/Na ve Hawaiian Fifty percent of students at Belle White Sherman tested as proficient in their ELA Assessments for the 62% Mul racial 2013-2014 school year (Figure 31).
Figure 31. Belle Sherman Elementary Demographics Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 37
3 OVERVIEW Public School Profiles Demographics by School (con’t)
1% 5% Fall Creek Elementary % Am. Indian/Alaska Na ve 2% students come from Fall 8% Black/African American Creek and South Side 30% neighborhoods. Thirty-eight Hispanic La no percent of students at Fall Asian/Na ve Hawaiian Creek tested as proficient in their ELA Assessments for White the 2013-2014 school year 81% Mul racial (Figure 32).
Figure 32. Fall Creek Elementary Demographics
South Hill Elementary 0% students come from South 5% 7% % Am. Indian/Alaska Na ve Hill and adjacent Ithaca 7% 3% Black/African American neighborhoods. Forty-six percent of students at South Hispanic La no Hill tested as proficient in Asian/Na ve Hawaiian their ELA Assessments for the 2013-2014 school year White (Figure 33). 78% Mul racial
Figure 33. South Hill Elementary Demographics Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
38 City of Ithaca • New York 38 12
Overview HOUSING RESOURCESHousing Resources 3 Governmental
CDBG/HOME Grants The City of Ithaca has been a HUD-designated Entitlement commonly used and provide federal tax credits to Community since 2003, providing the City a consistent developers who construct affordable housing. New York funding source that can be used towards housing State Homes and Community Renewal (HCR) also construction, housing assistance programs, economic administers a state low-income housing tax credit development, improving public facilities, and providing public program, as well as a housing trust fund. services. In terms of housing-based projects, the City has Tompkins County Office of Human Rights (OHR) allocated more than 70 percent of its CDBG/HOME funds OHR is a department of Tompkins County government toward housing-related activities since 2007. For example — responsible for enforcing and promoting human rights • $2.6 million towards the construction of rental and laws within Tompkins County. OHR enforces Code §92 owner-occupied housing units (Local Law C), Tompkins County’s local anti-discrimination • $1.08 million for repairs for low-income renters and law (which currently includes limited fair housing home-owners protections), and also attempts to resolve other housing • $359,540 for rental assistance for homeless families discrimination complaints through conciliation prior to headed by youth • $321,500 towards security deposit assistance for low- referring complaints to the appropriate state or federal income renters agency. OHR conducts outreach and education initiatives to housing providers, community stakeholders, and The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) is responsible for residents regarding fair housing rights and responsibilities. soliciting and proposing projects for funding. Successful projects must fulfill the goals of the ConPlan, which are based on an analysis of prioritized community needs. After the IURA has developed a funding plan for CDBG/HOME funds, the City Common Council must approve that plan.
The Housing Fund In 2009, the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, and Cornell University partnered to create the Housing Fund to assist with the development of affordable rental and owner- occupied housing units in the County. The Housing Fund has two components; (1) the Community Housing Affordability Program, which provides no-interest loans for pre- development costs associated with residential and mixed-use projects; and (2) the Community Housing Trust Fund, which provides grants for the purchase of land and construction of non-student housing units. Project awardees have built or begun construction on 124 affordable housing units to date (85 rental, 39 owner-occupied), with each dollar leveraging approximately five additional dollars in grants and other funding sources. Housing Fund projects represent over $33 million in total development costs. The Fund is administered by the Tompkins County Planning Department.
State and Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits Many local affordable housing developments utilize state or federal financing tools to aid in their construction and Housing Fund-Supported Project: Breckenridge Place, operation. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) are City of Ithaca (50 units). Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 39 39 12
3 Overview HOUSING RESOURCES Non-Profit Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS)* INHS is a non-profit housing provider that rehabilitates, constructs, and manages ownership and rental units for people with low- to median-incomes, primarily within the City of Ithaca. The agency also provides comprehensive homebuyer education courses and first-time homebuyer assistance. INHS operates a Community Housing Trust (CHT) that serves the purpose of maintaining the affordability of housing constructed through the program such as sustained ownership of the land on which the housing is built and limiting the amount of profit a homeowner can take from the resale of the house. INHS often operates with other sources of funding to provide affordable housing through The Aurora Street Pocket Neighborhood, Ithaca. Pocket the CHT, including HOME and Housing Fund dollars. Neighborhoods are similar to co-housing and small lot cottage development, except smaller in scale and cooperatively owned. Better Housing of Tompkins County (BHTC)* BHTC constructs and manages owner and rental housing for low- to moderate-income residents outside of the City of Ithaca in Finger Lakes Independence Center (FLIC) Tompkins County. BHTC also runs a homeownership program for FLIC provides a variety of housing-related services to low-income homebuyers, a first-time buyers program, a home- persons with disabilities including advocacy, workshops, rehab program, and rental units — including many senior and counseling. With the assistance of HOME funds, FLIC housing projects. has provided resources for the building of temporary
ramps and other accessibility-related modifications for Tompkins Community Action (TCAction) persons with disabilities. TCAction is one of two agencies in Tompkins County administering the Housing Choice Voucher program. TCAction also administers a Legal Assistance of Western NY (LawNY) Housing First voucher program, funded by HOME, for the LawNY is a legal-services firm operating in fourteen chronically homeless. Other housing services provided by TCAction counties across Western New York, including Tompkins include the HCV Home Ownership Option, Family Self-Sufficiency County. LawNY assists clients with general landlord- Plan, and supportive housing at two sites for previously homeless tenant matters, including eviction and loss of HCV families. In addition to housing services, TCAction provides early- benefits.
childhood education, home weatherization services, and a food pantry. A number of TCAction programs continue to be eligible for Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga (CC) HOME funds. CC provides many services to low-income individuals and families, including housing counseling (foreclosure and Ithaca Housing Authority (IHA) financial fitness), security deposit assistance, helping IHA owns and operates 341 units of public housing within the City people with food stamp applications, services for recent of Ithaca and administers HCVs throughout Tompkins County. IHA immigrants, and a clothing and linen pantry. CC’s also administers the Three Pillar Foundation, a family self- Security Deposit Assistance Program has been funded by sufficiency program that assists participating families (with 2:1 the City’s HOME allocation, providing one-time security matching funds) in establishing financial goals and setting aside deposit assistance. savings in order to achieve longer-term goals such as a home purchase or higher education. The Learning Web The Learning Web provides advocacy and services to *Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) and Better Housing for youth in Tompkins County. With HOME funding, the Tompkins County (BHTC) have combined their two organizations in order agency developed a Housing Scholarship Program that to improve the delivery of housing services to Tompkins County residents. Jointly, INHS and BHTC will continue to provide all their existing housing provides formerly homeless youth with rent and utility programs and services throughout the County. payments while completing school or working. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
40 City of Ithaca • New York 40
3 Overview HOUSING RESOURCES Non-Profit (con’t) Rescue Mission The Rescue Mission owns and operates shelters for homeless individuals, including Court Street Place, the Friendship Center (day center for the homeless), and the local emergency shelter. In addition to providing basic shelter, the Rescue Mission staff provides counseling and advocacy services for shelter residents.
Ithaca/Tompkins Continuum of Care (CoC) CoC is a collective of County agencies, representatives of local governments, schools, faith communities, and businesses who work together to address the issues that face those who are homeless or who are in danger of becoming homeless. CoC affiliates have built a shelter, opened a modern drop-in center, established meal programs, clothing closets, and free clinics — including the Porchfest is an annual music festival held on the porches of the Fall building of permanent and temporary supportive housing Creek and Northside neighborhoods in Ithaca and is sponsored by and single-room occupancies. Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS).
Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County (HSC) The mission of the HSC is to identify information and service needs, to provide planning and coordination, and to enhance the delivery of health and human services in the Tompkins County area. Its many programs include a 2-1-1 Information and Referral Service, training modules for human service professionals, and health planning services.
Housing and Homelessness Task Force (HHTF) The HHTF, facilitated by the Human Services Coalition, presents topics that educate and update members on emergency shelter, supplemental food programs, affordable housing, transportation, and other emerging basic needs for persons at risk of homelessness. The HHTF is the educational arm of the Ithaca/Tompkins Continuum of Care (CoC).
Advocacy Center (AC) Formerly the Task Force for Battered Women/Child Sexual Abuse Project, AC provides support, advocacy, shelter housing, and education for survivors of domestic violence (since 1977), survivors of child sexual abuse (since 1982), and survivors of adult sexual assault.
to Fair Housing Choice
Central New York Fair Housing (CNYFH) CNYFH is a HUD Qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization (QFHEO) in Syracuse, New York that investigates complaints of housing discrimination. In 2015, CNY Fair Housing expanded its services to cover Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca. CNYFH and OHR have a memorandum of understanding to provide fair housing outreach and enforcement strategies throughout the County. Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 41 12
3 Overview CITY BOARDS Housing-Related Boards/Commissions
Common Council Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Committee The legislative power of the City is vested in the Common The purpose of the Rewrite Committee is to create a well- Council, and it has power to enact and enforce any ordinance or written Zoning Ordinance document, where users can both resolution not in conflict with the Constitution or laws of New easily locate the regulations relevant to their projects and York State. Common Council consists of two elected more clearly understand all the associated requirements. representatives for each of the City’s five (5) wards. Common Rental Housing Advisory Commission Council members (also known as Alderpersons), serve four (4) The Rental Housing Commission is responsible for (1) year terms. recommending to Common Council new steps to be taken to Planning and Economic Development Committee improve the accessibility, affordability, and quality of rental The Planning and Economic Development Committee is a housing in the City; (2) advising Common Council on how their standing committee of the Common Council and its proposed actions would affect the accessibility, affordability, membership consists of five (5) Common Council members. The and quality of rental housing; (3) advising Common Council on Committee addresses city planning, housing, land use, zoning, steps to be taken to protect the rights and welfare of tenants; historic preservation, neighborhood initiatives, Building Division (4) advising the Board of Zoning Appeals on appeals for those process improvement, IURA issues and items pertaining to variances where housing affordability is a central issue; and economic development in the City. Members of this committee (5) providing education related to rental housing and seeking are appointed by the Mayor. possible solutions to the general problems which arise amongst landlords and tenants and neighbors. Planning and Development Board The Planning and Development Board (1) receives and acts on Housing Board Review subdivision and site plan review requests; (2) makes reports to The Housing Board of Review adopts from time to time rules the Board of Zoning Appeals concerning the granting of and regulations deemed necessary to carry into effect the variances and special permits; and (3) advises Common Council provision of the City Code. It also hears appeals for variances regarding preparation and revision of the City ordinances from the order of the Director of Planning, Building and related to planning, zoning, site plan review, signs, mobile home Economic Development in order to afford relief in such cases parks, subdivisions, historic landmarks and or districts, land use, where strict enforcement of the Code would create practical and related subjects. difficulties or unnecessary hardship.
Disability Advisory Council Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Board
The Disability Advisory Council assesses problems in the City The mission of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Board is to of Ithaca that present the greatest obstacles to equal rights, carry out the functions and duties of urban renewal in and for access and privileges of citizens with disabilities. After the City of Ithaca. Membership consists of five (5) members, conferring with staff and obtaining feedback from the including the Mayor of Ithaca. community, they determine which problems and needs Board of Zoning Appeals deserve the highest priority as well as those that have the The Board of Zoning Appeals reviews orders, requirements, greatest opportunity to be corrected. They communicate decisions, interpretations and/or determinations made by the regularly with the Mayor and appropriate City boards for the administrative official charged with the enforcement of purpose of making recommendations as to how these ordinances or local laws adopted by Common Council. problems may best be resolved. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
42 City of Ithaca • New York 42 43
3 Overview CITY BOARDS Boards/Commissions (con’t)
Board of Appeals on Building Codes Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Any person ordered to repair, remove or vacate a building The goal of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance is to and who is in disagreement with the judgment of the ensure exterior changes to locally designated historic Director of Planning, Building and Economic Development properties are compatible with the historic character of the may appeal to the Building Code Board of Appeals. individual property itself and, if the property is located within an historic district, of the district as a whole.
Table 8. City Common Council, Board, Commission Demographics
Other Persons African- Native Asian Non- Hispanic Ethnicity with TOTAL American American Americans White Latino Unknown Females Disabilities MEMBERS
Common Council 2 1 5 11
Planning and Economic Development Committee 1 3 5
Planning and Development Board 2 8
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Board 2 1 1 5
Board of Zoning Appeals 2 1 5
Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Committee 4 1 10
Rental Housing Advisory Commission 4 7
Housing Board of Review 5
Disability Advisory Council 4 9 14
Board of Appeals on Building Codes 3
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 3 7
Totals 4 2 1 28 11 80
to Fair Housing Choice
Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 43
3 Overview HOUSING INQUIRIES 2-1-1 Tompkins/Information and Referral
2-1-1 Tompkins/ Information and Referral (2-1-1) operates at the hub of the Tompkins County services network to promote effective service delivery and efficient allocation of community resources. 2-1-1 connects people in need with services designed to address that need by providing a central telephone information service and chat line, as well as maintaining a data base of community information. Callers are referred to service providers according to Table 10. 2-1-1’s Top Housing Needs for Callers their situation. Advocacy and follow-up services are provided, as appropriate. Quality assurance surveys Rank Need Contacts are performed three times annually to evaluate caller 1 Affordable Housing 101 satisfaction with 2-1-1 service delivery. 2-1-1 2 Rent Payment Assistance 48 maintains a comprehensive Directory of Services for 3 Homeless Shelter 46 Tompkins County on the Web, as well as publishes the 4 Homeless Support 42 "Tompkins County Community Services Guide.” 5 Rent Supplements/Section 8 34 Calls related to housing made up 8 percent of 2-1- 1’s total call volume, with inquiries about affordable 6 Landlord/Tenant Problems 32 housing topping the list at 19 percent (Table 9). Calls 7 Rent Deposit Assistance 30 about direct payment assistance (Section 8, security 8 Emergency Shelter 28 deposit assistance, etc.) and immediate housing 9 Housing: General/Misc. 24 insecurity (homelessness, emergency and crisis 10 Low Cost/Public Housing 24 shelters, etc.) were 21 percent and 23 percent of 11 Eviction Assistance 20 housing-related calls, respectively. Contacts regarding housing discrimination were approximately 3 percent 12 Complaints/Refugee/Veterans 16 (Table 10). 13 Moving Assistance 11 14 Senior Housing Info 10 15 Housing for Persons with Disabilities 10
Table 9. 2-1-1’s Top Categories of Caller Need 16 Crisis Shelter 7 17 Home Repairs 7 Rank Need Contacts 1 Consumer Services 1711 18 Moving Expense Assistance 7 2 Transportation 1121 19 Homeless Financial Assistance 5 3 Health Care 855 20 Utilities Connection/Repair 5 4 Organizational/Community Services 580 5 Housing 527 21 Home Maintenance 4 6 Criminal Justice and Legal Services 375 22 Home Repairs (minor) 4 7 Income Security 310 23 Home Buying Assistance 3 8 Individual and Family Life 250 24 Weatherization 3 9 Mental Health Care and Counseling 196 10 Environmental Quality 188 25 Home Rehabilitation 2 11 Food 152 26 Supervised Living Facilities 2 12 Education 99 27 Home Insurance 1 13 Material Resources 98 14 Utilities 45 28 Mortgage Foreclosure Assistance 1
Total 6,507 Total 527
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 44 City of Ithaca • New York 44
3 Overview HOUSING STOCK Age of Housing Stock Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca have acknowledged a shortage of housing units that are accessible, with 88 percent of all units being built before 1980 and 61 percent of rental units being built before 1949 (Figures 34, 35, and 36). Given that much of Ithaca’s housing stock was built prior to federal laws requiring accessibility, significant modifications are needed in many buildings to comply with ADA requirements which became the accessibility standard in 1990. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (TCCP) and City of Ithaca ConPlan identify the need to bolster the supply of accessible housing in order to meet the Fair Housing Choice needs of the community. The TCCP promotes as a housing goal that the County "maintain an adequate supply of housing for people requiring supportive services." The ConPlan identifies "housing targeted Figure 34. Housing Built Before 1949 by Census Tract towards special needs populations" as an area requiring action because aging housing presents significant barriers to persons with mobility disabilities and the elderly. According to the Tompkins County Housing Preferences Survey Report (Report) conducted in June 2014 by the County’s Office for the Aging (COFA), many older adults have a desire to “age in place” — ideally living within the City or Town of Ithaca in housing that is affordable, accessible, on a single floor, and with easy access to public transportation and services. However, the City’s current housing stock is perceived to be too old, which requires expensive retrofitting in order to make it accessible for older adults. The Report states that, “[b]ecause the population in the County is bifurcated between students and non-students, it is difficult to create a housing stock that will meet the needs of both students and aging residents.” Accessible design features don’t only accommodate elders, Figure 35. Housing Built Before 1980 by Census Tract but are useful to children and adults who may have permanent or temporary injuries or physical disabilities. The COFA Report
promotes the strategy of developing housing stock with 80% 70% universally-designed principles in mind. In doing so, the City will 70%
No. 2 People with disabilities report higher
ensure that a portion of its available housing stock is permanently 60% available to all people regardless of ability. 46% 50% levels of discrimination and lower to Fair Housing Choice However, since the provision of accessible units would 40% levels of housing accommodation 30% heavily depend on new construction or major renovation of 21% than other residents. 16% 20% existing units, the City of Ithaca’s capacity to provide these units is 11% 12% 12% 7% IMPEDIMENT relatively restricted due to the limited amount of developable 4% 2% 0% 0% 10% land within the City. In addition, local residents are often 0% 1939 or 1940 to 1960 to 1980 to 2000 to 2010 or resistant to new development due to their discomfort with the earlier 1959 1979 1999 2009 later concept of density in housing. Figure 36. City of Ithaca Housing by Year Built Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 45
3 Overview HOUSING STOCK Renting/Owning Profiles In the U.S., renter-occupied housing units make up 35 percent of all housing units. In Tompkins County,
8000 7359 however, 45 percent of all housing units are renter occupied; and in the City of Ithaca that number increases 6000 to 74 percent (2010 Census). This metric indicates a 4000 Owner Occupied strong need for housing providers to be sufficiently Units 2688 Renter Occupied aware of their fair housing responsibilities. 2000 Number of Housing 0 City of Ithaca housing type 100% 1.90% mobile/other Figure 37. City of Ithaca Rent or Own Profile housing 90% 24.50% 10 or more 80% apartments
70% 5 to 9 15.30% apartments 80% 69% 60% 3 or 4 60% 50% 14.90% apartments 41% 40% 30% Owner Occupied 26% 40% 14% 2 apartments 20% 14% 14.10% 0% 5% Renter Occupied 30% 2.80% 0% 1 unit, a ached Studio 1 Bedroom 2 or 3 4 or more 20% Bedrooms Bedrooms 26.40% 10% 1 unit, detached Figure 38. City of Ithaca Bedroom Profile 0%
Figure 39. City of Ithaca Housing Type
Lack of Fair Housing training for landlords, No. 3 property managers, realtors, service providers, and other housing stakeholders. IMPEDIMENT
Figure 40. Owner-Occupied Housing by Census Tract Figure 41. Renter-Occupied Housing by Census Tract Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
46 City of Ithaca • New York 46
Overview AFFORDABILITY 3 Median Values/Rent Rates
In general, the need for affordable housing is not unique to Ithaca, and the shortage of it is not a fair housing choice impediment in itself. However, in communities where affordable housing levels fail to meet demand, it can create market conditions that are conducive to discriminatory practices. For example, with an abundance of willing takers and short housing supply, landlords may be more likely to discriminate and screen out “undesirable” tenants. Although the lack of affordable housing has a disparate impact on persons belonging to protected groups, this AI study will characterize it as an indirect impediment to fair housing choice because “Level of Income” is not a protected category under fair housing laws.
FAIR MARKET RENTS (FMRs)
On an annual basis, HUD releases its Fair Market Rents (FMR) for metropolitan areas. FMRs are primarily used to determine payment standard amounts for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (HCV); and may also serve as a useful index for a community’s rental market. Ithaca’s Metropolitan Figure 42. Median Rent by Census Tract Statistical Area (MSA) is composed of the entirety of Tompkins County. Since 2006, all rental units have increased in cost substantially. For example, units with between one and four bedrooms have all experienced increases in FMRs of greater than 50 percent (Figure 44). As shown in Tables 11-13 on the following page, ACS data indicate that a majority of Ithaca/Tompkins County renters exceed what is considered affordable in terms of percentage of income spent on housing.
80% 76%
70% 58% 60% 54% 50% 50%
40% to Fair Housing Choice
30% 26%
20%
10%
0% Efficiency 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR Figure 43. Median Home Value by Census Tract
Figure 44. Ithaca’s Percent of FMR Growth 2006-2014 Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 47
Overview AFFORDABILITY Market Trends/Cost Burden 3
$1,700 FMRs (con’t) Regionally, the Ithaca MSA has FMRs $1,500 Efficiency that are 36 percent and 33 percent $1,300 1-BR greater than FMRs for the Binghamton $1,100 and Elmira MSA, respectively (Figure 2-BR 45/Table 11). Median household $900 3-BR income for the Ithaca MSA is only 9 $700 4-BR percent and 5 percent greater than the Binghamton and Elmira MSA, $500 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 respectively.
Figure 45. City of Ithaca Fair Market Rent Trend COST BURDEN
Affordable housing is not necessarily Table 11. 2014 Fair Market Rent Regional Comparison low-income housing. For example, housing is considered affordable if it Efficiency 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR Average accounts for no more than 30 percent of Ithaca MSA $769 $943 $1,130 $1,565 $1,571 $1,196 a household’s gross monthly income. Binghamton MSA $512 $542 $692 $987 $1,119 $770 The 2009-2013 American Community Elmira MSA $500 $600 $787 $1,009 $1,130 $805 Survey 5-year estimates show that housing costs in Ithaca are greater than
Table 12. Gross Rent as Percentage of Household Income 30 percent of income for 39 percent of housing units with a mortgage and 69 Percent of percent of renters (Tables 12 and 13). People Percentage of Income For housing units without a mortgage, Less than 15.0 percent 7.00% only 6 percent pay more than 30 percent 15.0 to 19.9 percent 6.20% of income towards their housing needs 20.0 to 24.9 percent 1.02% (Table 14). 25.0 to 29.9 percent 7.80%
30.0 to 34.9 percent 6.50% 35.0 percent or more 62.20% Percent greater than 30% (Overburdened) 68.70% Table 14. Housing Costs as Percentage of Household Income in Households without a Mortgage Percent of Table 13. Housing Costs as Percentage of Household Income Percentage of Income People in Households with a Mortgage Less than 10.0 percent 28.8% Percent of Percentage of Income People 10.0 to 14.9 percent 28.2% Less than 20.0% 36.7% 15.0 to 19.9 percent 15.0% 20.0 to 24.9 percent 17.0% 20.0 to 24.9 percent 6.8% 8.0% 25.0 to 29.9 percent 25.0 to 29.9 percent 4.4% 8.8% 30 to 34.9 percent 30.0 to 34.9 percent 4.3% 35.0 percent or more 29.6% 35.0 percent or more 1.3% Percent greater than 30% (Overburdened) 38.4% Percent greater than 30 (Overburdened) 5.6% Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
48 City of Ithaca • New York 48
Overview SUBSIDIZED HOUSING 3 Housing Programs/Projects
In Tompkins County, there are approximately Table 15. Subsidized Housing Projects in Tompkins County 2,029 units of project-based affordable rental Number of Year housing, representing 5 percent of all housing City of Ithaca Units Built Type units (2012 ACS 5 Year). Within the City of Overlook Terrace 10 1969 Public Ithaca there are 926 units; in the Town of McGraw House 105 1971 Senior Ithaca there are 699 units; and in other County Northside Apartments 70 1971 Public municipalities there are 366 units (Table 15). Titus Towers 1 165 1972 Public Senior These affordable-housing units are located West Village 235 1972 Private within projects that were constructed and continue to operate with a form of public Southview Apartments 26 1975 Public subsidy that allows the unit to rent for less Chestnut Hill Apartments 60 1980 Private than what it may cost in an open rental Titus Towers 2 70 1984 Public Senior market. Subsidy sources for these units Chartwell House 12 1995 Rehabilitation include: Mutual Housing 1st Street 28 1997 Non-Profit Corn Street Apartments 6 2006 Non-Profit • Public Housing projects Lakeview SRO 38 2008 Disabled • Low Income Tax Credit projects (LIHTC) • USDA Rural Housing loans Cedar Creek Apartments 39 2009 Non-Profit • HOME funds Rescue Mission 15 2009 Homeless Shelter • Community Housing Trust Breckenridge Place 50 2013 Non-Profit
Much of Tompkins County’s subsidized Stone Quarry (Planned) 35 2015 Non-Profit rental housing stock is located within the City Total 929 of Ithaca. However, from 2000-2006, Number of Year approximately 456 units of subsidized housing Town of Ithaca Units Built Type were built in the Town of Ithaca — with 352 of Maple Hill 82 1972 Private those units being located in the Town’s West Longview 161 1998 Senior Hill area. Linderman Creek 56 2000 Private Much of the subsidized rental housing Linderman Creek II 72 2003 Private stock in Tompkins County (outside the City and Cayuga View 24 2005 Private Town) is senior housing, with only one Ellis Hollow Road Apartments 104 2006 Senior subsidized non-senior development. Overlook at West Hill 128 2006 Private Mobile home parks are a lower cost Conifer Village 72 2008 Senior housing option for many residents of Tompkins Total 699 County, for both renters and owners. Number of Year However, the rural locations of the mobile Rest of County Units Built Type home parks provide limited transportation and Fountain Manor 24 1988 Senior Non-Profit service resources for its residents. Woods Edge Apartments 40 1981 Senior Within the City, there exists one mobile to Fair Housing Choice
Newfield Garden Apartments 28 1985 Senior Non-Profit home park. Nate’s Floral Estates has Willowbrook Manor 50 1979 Senior approximately 100 renter- and owner- Poets Landing 72 2010 Private occupied housing units. So, although mobile Lehigh Crossing 24 1991 Senior home parks do not receive housing subsidies, Center Village Court 60 1978 Senior they are often more affordable than traditional Schoolhouse Gardens 28 1992 Senior City housing units due to lower construction Juniper Manor 40 1991 Senior Non-Profit and land costs. Total 366
Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 49
3 Overview SUBSIDIZED HOUSING Programs/Process
The Ithaca Housing Authority owns and operates 341 rental units of public housing within the City of Ithaca — 235 housing units are designated senior housing and 106 units are multi- family sites (Figures 46 and 47). Units are available to the elderly, disabled, or families who earn less than 80 percent of the area median income. However, priority is given to families with incomes considered “extremely low” (30 percent of AMI) or “very low” (50 percent of AMI). At least 40 percent of new tenants admitted to public housing in any fiscal year must be considered to have “extremely low” incomes. Due to the large number of extremely and very low- income families on the wait list, however, “low- income” families (80 percent of AMI) do not often secure an apartment. In all of IHA’s public housing units, 21 percent of households are African-American, 7 percent are Figure 46. Subsidized Multi-Family Housing Sites in Ithaca Hispanic or Latino, nearly 50 percent are elderly, and approximately 20 percent are disabled. Because 69 percent of IHA’s units are designated senior housing, the high proportion of seniors and disabled individuals is not surprising. However, the percentage of African-Americans living in public housing units is highly disproportionate to Ithaca’s total African-American population of 6.5 percent.
As of May 2014, there were 215 households on IHA’s waiting list for public housing. The time
spent waiting for a unit in Titus Towers, one of
IHA’s senior housing projects, was between three When it comes to public housing No. 4 and six months. For IHA’s family sites — Northside programs, non-senior families Apartments, Southview Apartments, and Overlook spend significantly longer periods Terrace — the waiting period was between one of time waiting for housing than and three years. Of those on the waitlist, 16 senior households. percent were disabled, 11 percent were Hispanic IMPEDIMENT or Latino, and over 30 percent were African- American. It may be important to note that the number of African-American families on the wait list is substantially greater than their already disproportionate number in public housing units. Figure 47. Ithaca Housing Authority Project Locations
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
50 City of Ithaca • New York 50 1
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING 3 Overview Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Demographics
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), also known as Section 8 vouchers, are a form of tenant-based rental assistance that pays for a portion of the voucher holder’s rent. Vouchers may be used at any apartment unit that complies with HUD eligibility requirements for cost and condition. Locally, the Ithaca Housing Authority and Tompkins Community Action manage Tompkins County’s allocation of 1,839 HCVs (Figures 48 and 49).
Tompkins Community Action (TCAction)
TCAction administers 847 HVC households comprising 2,272 residents. Of these residents, 21 percent are African-American, 6 percent are Hispanic, and 1 percent are Asian. Of non-elderly voucher holder’s, 36 percent are disabled.
Ithaca Housing Authority (IHA)
As of July 2014, IHA had 992 vouchers available, Figure 48. Families w/ HCVs in City of Ithaca with the number of actual vouchers in use varying weekly. A snapshot of IHA HCV recipients from the summer of 2014 indicates that approximately 20 percent were African-American, 6 percent were Hispanic, 36 percent were persons with disabilities, and 17 percent were elderly.
Vouchers administered by either IHA or TCAction may be used at any cost-and- condition-eligible rental unit in the City of Ithaca and throughout Tompkins County.
to Fair Housing Choice
Figure 49. Families w/ HCVs in Tompkins County Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 51 23
3 Overview SUBSIDIZED HOUSING Source of Income/Disparate Treatment Although “Source of Income” is not a protected class in disabilities, but nearly 40 percent of HCV recipients are persons Tompkins County or the City of Ithaca, HCV recipients are with disabilities (Table 16). Similarly, female-headed often members of protected classes. AI data show that the households and Latinos are over-represented in TCAction’s lawful exclusion against renters using HCVs is widely pool of HCV recipients. practiced by landlords in Tompkins County. It is also important to note that discrimination on the As part of this AI research, four (4) fair housing tests basis of Source of Income may not only pose an illegal disparate were conducted on the basis of Source of Income. In each impact on protected class members; at times, it may also be a
test, the Protected Tester informed the rental agent that an pretext for direct discriminatory treatment. HCV would be used to pay a portion of his or her rent. All A possible example — in 2014, an owner of a housing Exclusionary tactics against No. 5
Section 8 testers were either outright rejected, steered to complex with over fifty (50) units in the City of Ithaca decided individuals and households who rely on Housing Choice Vouchers other properties, or refused based on the Section 8 agency’s to no longer rent to HCV tenants. As a result, not only were (Section 8) is prevalent in the City security deposit policy. dozens of protected-class households displaced by the non- and has a disparate impact on TCAction data also suggests that the lawful exclusion renewal of their leases, but the owner also resorted to eviction protected classes. against HCV recipients has a disparate impact on protected as a way to expedite their removal. IMPEDIMENT classes — including families headed by women, African- According to TCAction reports, housing within the City of Americans, Hispanics, and persons with disabilities. African- Ithaca that is close to employment opportunities, shopping, Americans constitute over 20 percent of HCV recipients, but and services is nearly impossible for renters using HCVs to are only 6.5 percent of the population overall. Fifteen secure; and in the City of Ithaca, it has unfortunately become a percent (15%) of Tompkins County residents are people with reliable safe harbor for discriminatory intent.
Table 16. Demographics of HCV Holders in Tompkins County
Tompkins County % of Population TCA (individuals) IHA (households) White 82.6 69.32% 75.54% Black 4 21.08% 19.37% Asian 8.6 1.10% 3.85% Hispanic 4.2 6.07% 5.91%
Disabled 3% 44% (Households) 35.79%
76% The metrics related to HCV 80% Tompkins holders is mirrored by County 70% County data which shows that 60% HCV persons receiving County 50% 44% Recipients 36% services and housing 40%
subsidies are not only more 30% 21% likely to be members of 20% 6% protected groups, but are 10% 4% 4% 3% more likely to face significant 0% barriers when it comes to fair Female Heads African Hispanics People with housing choice (Figure 50). of Household Americans Disabili es
Figure 50. Percentage of Section 8 Voucher vs. Percentage of Total Population Tompkins County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
52 City of Ithaca • New York 52
Overview EMPLOYMENT 3 City Workforce Demographics
The largest employers in Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca are predominantly academic institutions: 90% 84% % of Labor Force EEO Tabula on 2006-2010 5 Year ACS Es mate Cornell University, Ithaca College, and 80% Tompkins-Cortland Community 70% College. 60% 52% 48% Labor force participation closely 50% tracks the general population in 40% Tompkins County, with no 30% demographic group being significantly 20% 8% 4% over or under-represented (Figure 51). 10% 3% 1% 1% Within the City of Ithaca’s full-time 0% municipal workforce, 82 percent of White Black or American Asian Other Races Other Hispanic or Hispanic Male Female African Indian or Races La no (any or Latino employees are White, approximately American Alaska (any race)race) 13 percent are Black or African- Na ve American (which represents twice the Figure 51. Civilian Labor Force Participation: Race, National Origin, Sex population rate), 3 percent are Hispanic or Latino, nearly 1 percent are Asian or Pacific Islander, and approximately 1 percent are American Indian or Alaska Native (Table 17).
Table 17. City of Ithaca EEO-4 Report - Full-Time Employees - Survey Year 2013
Male Female
Non-Hispanic American Non-Hispanic American Origin Asian or Indian or Origin Asian or Indian or
Pacific Alaskan Pacific Alaskan Job Categories Total White Black Hispanic Islander Native White Black Hispanic Islander Native Officials and Administrator 34 18 2 0 0 0 11 3 0 0 0
Professionals 58 34 4 2 0 0 17 1 0 0 0
Technicians 40 28 3 1 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 Protective Service Workers 96 80 4 1 1 1 8 1 0 0 0 to Fair Housing Choice
Paraprofessionals 22 4 4 0 0 0 8 4 2 0 0 Administrative Support 38 1 1 0 0 1 30 5 0 0 0 Skilled Craft Workers 57 40 11 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Service- Maintenance 34 18 7 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 1
TOTALS 379 223 36 8 3 3 89 14 2 0 1
Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 53
Overview EMPLOYMENT City/County Labor Market Profile 3
Both Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca have a lower unemployment rate than New York State as a whole, at 4 percent, 5 percent and 6 30,000 Popula on 16 years and over percent respectively. Historical data shows that 25,000 this has been a stable trend for over a decade In Labor force (Figure 52). 20,000 The City of Ithaca has a high rate of persons 15,000 Employed over 16 years of age that are not in the labor 10,000 force. This is primarily attributable to the Unemployed presence of Cornell University and Ithaca College 5,000 and the many full-time students residing within Not in labor force 0 the City (Figure 53). City of Ithaca Educational Services dominate the employment landscape in Tompkins County, Figure 53. Labor Force Profile, City of Ithaca accounting for 41 percent of jobs. Other major employment sectors in Tompkins County include Table 18. Jobs by Industry Sector in Tompkins County Health Care and Social Assistance (11 percent), Retail (8 percent), Accommodation and Food Change 2011 % of total Services (8 percent), Manufacturing (7 percent), since 2006 and Professional, Scientific, and Technical All Sectors 49,497 -2.5% 100% Services (5 percent) (Table 18). Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 450 -4.5% 0.9% The largest increase in employment sectors Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas occurred in Professional, Scientific, and Technical Extraction 342 -6.8% 0.7% Services and Manufacturing — growing 19 Utilities 203 -31.4% 0.4% percent and 16 percent, respectively. Jobs in Construction 803 -8.0% 1.6% Educational Services decreased over the same Manufacturing 3,513 15.7% 7.1% period. Wholesale Trade 598 -4.8% 1.2% Retail Trade 4,164 0.3% 8.4% Transportation and Warehousing 777 -0.5% 1.6%
Information 513 -2.3% 1.0% 10.0% 9.0% Finance and Insurance 998 5.4% 2.0% 8.0% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 543 -10.1% 1.1% 7.0% City of Ithaca Professional, Scientific, and Technical 6.0% Services 2,390 19.2% 4.8% Tompkins Management of Companies and 5.0% County Enterprises 78 160.0% 0.2% 4.0% New York 3.0% State Administrative and Support and Waste 2.0% Management and Remediation Services 812 -13.2% 1.6% 1.0% Educational Services 20,500 -11.7% 41.4% 0.0% Health Care and Social Assistance 5,597 10.7% 11.3%
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 651 -11.5% 1.3% Figure 52. Unemployment Rate Comparison Accommodation and Food Services 3,872 11.5% 7.8% Other Services (except Public 11.1% Administration) 1,373 2.8% Public Administration 1,322 -5.9% 2.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Public Use Quarterly Workforce Indicators (QWI) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 54 City of Ithaca • New York 54
3 Overview TRANSPORTATION Public Transportation
L OCKE RD
CO TO
RTLAND CO M Households without a vehicle — due to 222CORTLAND RD PKINS COUNTY
RIDGE RD 37 economic circumstance, disability, or UNTY PE
R
AU 34 36 U
BURN R
choice, are at a disadvantage in regards D 34B 74
RD SENECA COUNTY 22 Summer Service 40 PERUVILLE RD to accessing jobs, services, and 43 Select Service 89 CA 34B YU PERUVILLE RD G TA A 38 D U R G G K H E amenities. Convenient access to public A zone changes at R E R N O N ASBU C O Farrell Rd T LL AND RD 36 RYYR O A C zone changes at RD F TL K D KIRK N R B LVD R Water Wagon Rd D CO 21 R
D zone RD transit is essential to these households WA E 2 13 96 T zone R 1 RREN U 43 Select Service M A T zone changes at N S
A S zone changes at RD F
B E Kirk Rd R and can greatly limit housing and U T EE R S V G Glenwood Heights Rd 37 ILLE R IN D RD 34 A M 366 38 77 zone 2 PIP 30 NCKNEYNC VIRGIL RD zone 1 DRYDEN RD 392 employment options if not adequately 70 74 72 40 75 13 21 74 ETNA RD 43 Summer Service RD 32 Cayuga 41 DAR R 13 K 89 Medical EE made available. 75 CR 96 Center 13 LOWER 37 40 zone changes at 14 Guthrie 74 Clinic YDEN RD zone changes at DR Iradell Rd 31 D 366 Kirk Rd R 30 Y D E zone 2 zone 1 N
TURKEY HILL RD H A 20 R FO 79 R MECKLENBURG RD 79 D D zone changes at R R TCAT/Gadabout D
N Ithaca 38 I Genung Rd
A Y M zone changes at D
L E
I Sheffield Rd 533 F
N E Tompkins County's public transit system SummerSS Service 1 327 22 2 zone changes at one 676 C z one O z PKINS COUNT PKINS 52 Enfield Falls Rd D 53 EN D S (TCAT) bus service provides M L TOMPKINS COUNTY FIE 13 IN ATTE LD G ERRV 65 T COUNTY TO O ILL TIOGA SCHUYLER COUNTY SCHUYLER 327 34 N E D R RD ANBY RD 1 D zone B 96 BY RD 2 R 52 transportation options to residents of zone zone changes at O B RD O 52 K OICEVILL 67 T W German Cross Rd O 52 E ND D S A R T L E 53
R A D zone changes at D E S R VALLEY RD L the City, County, and nearby I A R AT N E D R M Comfort Rd VIL L B 96B LE RD E Y
R
D D IEL communities and institutions. TCAT is EWF 67 N D T R DEPO
subsidized by its three funding partners: 34 65 96 DANBY RD the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, and 13 Cornell University. Most TCAT service is provided on Figure 54. TCAT Route Map (County-Wide) regular fixed routes, including urban, rural, and campus routes (Figure 54). In addition, TCAT also operates paratransit, demand- response, special event shuttles, vanpools, and ridesharing. As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, TCAT contracts with Gadabout to provide its complementary paratransit to people who are unable to take fixed-route transit due to their disability. In addition to TCAT’s paratransit service, Gadabout also provides transportation for senior citizens in Tompkins County. According to TCAT’s 2013 Annual Report, ADA trips (rides taken by individuals whose disabilities prevent them from using regular fixed route bus service) increased 57 percent from 2008 to 2013, while non-ADA trips decreased. Persons who qualify for ADA service, after a certification process, are allowed to take advantage of the lower TCAT half fare. It is also important to note that approximately 32 percent of public transportation riders in Tompkins County speak a language other than English. Of those people, 25 percent speak English “less than very well.” In accordance with TCAT’s Title VI obligations, language services and outreach are provided to LEP riders. to Fair Housing Choice For more than thirty years, public transit in Upstate New York counties has been significantly subsidized by Medicaid which provides healthcare to low-income Americans — including rides to appointments and non-urgent care. Starting in 2012, however, that subsidization began to disappear due to NY State’s overhaul of the way Medicaid is distributed. This dynamic has had a regional impact on low-income residents living in outlying areas as rural routes continue to disappear and/or operate less frequently.
Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 55
3 Overview TRANSPORTATION Commuting Times/Means
Residents of the City of Ithaca used public transit to Table 19. Percentage of Public Transit Users commute to work at a higher rate than other major cities in upstate New York, including Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Ithaca commuters also used the public bus system at a higher rate than any other area in New York State (Table 19). City residents drove alone to work approximately half as much as residents of the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County. City of Ithaca residents used the TCAT bus system at a similar rate as Town residents and approximately twice as much as County residents. Over 40 percent of City residents walked to work, more than twice the rate of Town residents (Figure 55). Overall, a majority of City and Town residents had commute times to work of less than 14 minutes, while approximately 10 percent had commute times of more than 25 minutes (Figure 56).
70% 58% 60% 49% Tompkins County 50% 42% 40% Town of Ithaca 29% 30% 17% City of Ithaca 20% 12% 16% 11% 11% 9% 9% 7% 10% 7% 8% 10% 1% 2% 2% 0% Drive Alone Carpool Public Walked Bicycle Worked at Transit home
Figure 55. Means of Transportation to Work
35% 29% 30% 27% 25% 26% Tompkins County 25% 19% 20% 19% 20% Town of Ithaca 20% 17% 17% City of Ithaca 15% 12% 10% 10% 8% 7% 4% 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% Less than 10-14 min 15-19 min 20-24 min 25-29 min 30-34 min 35-44 min 45-59 min 60 or more 10 min min
Figure 56. Travel Times to Work Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
56 City of Ithaca • New York 56 12
Overview ZONING 3 Local Codes
Zoning regulations such as minimum lot sizes, allowable building types, or the permitting process all impact the supply and location of housing. Municipalities must be conscious of how their zoning codes impact the housing needs of protected classes. This often means ensuring that certain housing types or zoning regulations are both allowed and not inhibited by unnecessary permitting processes. Multi-Family Housing. In the City of Ithaca, multi- family housing is allowable by right in residential zones Zone R-2 (R2a, R2b, R2c) and R-3 (R3a, R3aa, R3b). Parcels zoned R-2 allow the construction of two-family homes (duplexes) reducing minimum parking requirements in exchange for and parcels zoned R-3 permit multiple dwellings, rooming or building affordable units, and expedited permitting for boarding houses, cooperative housing, fraternity/sorority developments with affordable housing units. housing, dormitories, townhouses/garden apartments, child Ithaca’s zoning code does not currently include any of and adult day care centers, and nursing homes. The R-U the above incentives for the construction of affordable zone allows for the same construction as R-2 and R-3, housing units. though requiring larger lot sizes. Mixed-Use Zoning. Mixed-use zoning combines land Definition of Family. The definition of “Family” in a use types that are typically kept separate in a zoning code. A zoning code may unnecessarily inhibit fair housing choice. mixed-use zone may include combinations of residential, An over-restrictive definition of family could prevent certain commercial, and industrial activities. In Ithaca, Zones B-1, B- housing arrangements that are necessary for affordability 2, B-4, B-5, CBD, and WEDZ all permit multi-family residential purposes or could potentially prevent extended families as defined for the R-3 zones, in addition to their commercial from residing together. designations. The City’s zoning code (City Code Sec. 325-3) defines a Additionally, residential zones R-2 and R-3 allow for the family as being “one or more persons occupying a dwelling construction of “neighborhood commercial facilities” by unit — all of whom are related by blood, marriage, or special permit. A neighborhood commercial facility is adoption.” A “functional family” is defined as “a group of defined as a “retail or service facility catering to the day-to- individuals living together in a single dwelling unit and day commercial needs of the surrounding neighborhood.” functioning as a family with respect to those characteristics This may include grocery stores, pharmacies, barbershops,
that are consistent with the purpose of zoning restrictions in laundromats, etc. residential neighborhoods.” Characteristics of a “functional From a fair housing choice perspective, mixed-use zoning family” may include occupants who share an entire dwelling may help bring people’s living spaces closer to where they unit (not boarders), the presence of minor dependent work, shop, do business, and access vital services. For people children, or the sharing of expenses such as rent and food. with mobility limitations, a neighborhood with a mix of uses The inclusion of the “functional family” in the Ithaca City may help provide a way of life that promotes independent code allows for roommates to share expenses and make living. housing costs more affordable. Furthermore, Ithaca’s code Accessory Units. Accessory apartments are small, stand- to Fair Housing Choice does not include any language that would tend to prohibit alone housing units located within the property of an owner- the development of groups homes. occupied home. Accessory apartments are recognized as Affordable Housing Incentives. Some municipalities being a low-cost alternative for people who may benefit from have developed strategies that include incentives for the option of renting smaller living spaces, such as elderly or developers to construct affordable housing in their zoning low-income persons. code. Examples of incentives include density bonuses For example, the City zoning code (§325-10) allows (allowing developers to build more market rate units than accessory apartments by permit only in all R and B zoning regularly allowed in exchange for building affordable units), districts. Permits are obtained by submitting an application
Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 57 3
Overview ZONING Local Codes (con’t) 3
to the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning and Development Board. Permits are valid for a period of three years, must be renewed by submitting an application, and are subject to inspection by the Department of Building, Planning and Development. Cluster Subdivisions. The City zoning code allows for cluster subdivisions (§325-11) and planned unit developments (§325-12) as a form of alternative development criteria that may reduce the cost of housing. Allowing for flexibility in development is another way a zoning code may aide in the construction of housing beneficial to members of protected classes. Cluster subdivisions also allow for housing units to be built at a higher density than regular subdivision regulations would permit, by allowing flexibility in lot area, lot coverage, and other regulations. One purpose of cluster subdivisions is to reduce the cost of housing development, making the housing unit more affordable. The City allows cluster subdivisions in Zones R-1a, R1b, R2a, R2b, R3a, and R3b. Planned-Unit Developments (PUDs). PUDs are a designated zone that allows certain types of construction to follow different regulations than would normally be permitted in the chosen location. The City’s PUD ordinance allows for floating PUDs to be established in areas that are currently zoned for industrial uses. The ordinance states that “a PUD should be used only when long-term community benefits will be achieved through high quality development, including but not limited to . . . Seneca Street viewing West
needed housing types and or /mix.” The ordinance also establishes criteria that the City’s Common Council must consider when reviewing a PUD
application. The criteria are: “1) Does this project further the Approval processes related to the
health and welfare of the community? 2) Is the project in No. 6 construction of housing may be accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan? 3) Does this overly cumbersome and inhibitive project create at least one long-term community benefit?” for the development of affordable or Cluster subdivisions and PUDs may not directly affect Fair accessible housing. Housing Choice, but may allow the City greater flexibility in reaching its housing goals, including its obligation to IMPEDIMENT Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
New Ithaca Commons Rendering Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
58 City of Ithaca • New York 58 12
3 Overview PROPERTY TAX
The City of Ithaca has consistently higher property tax rates than the average of other Tompkins County 70% municipalities (Figure 57).* Since 2004, the City’s average property tax rate has been $19.69 per 60% $1,000 of assessed value (Figure 58). The average rate since 2004 for surrounding 50% 62% Tompkins County municipalities is $12.16 per $1,000 of assessed value. Different tax rates indicate 40% varying levels of municipal services and size of local 30% government. Tax rates also affect the cost of 40% housing, with the higher tax rates of the City increasing the cost of both owner and renter 20% occupied housing. County and City tax exemptions may assist 10% members of certain protected classes. For example, 0% people with disabilities and seniors with incomes up City of Ithaca Tompkins County to $37,400 are eligible for a reduction in their City property taxes, while the income limit for the same Figure 57. Percentage of Non-Taxable Property groups is $36,400 for a County property tax reduction. The relatively high property tax rates in the City Ithaca are home to two major tax-exempt educational institutions — may be an indirect impediment to Fair Housing Cornell University and Ithaca College. Approximately 40 percent of Choice, especially if it further encourages taxable value in Tompkins County is exempt from taxation. In the development in areas of lower taxation and results in City of Ithaca, approximately 62 percent of taxable value is exempt, creating housing with poorer access to jobs, as a large portion of Cornell University’s campus is located within transportation, and goods and services. City boundaries. Significantly, Tompkins County and the City of
$25
$20
$15 City of Ithaca Average Tompkins Co. $10 Rate per $1000 $5 to Fair Housing Choice
$0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 58. Combined County/Municipal Property Tax Rate Comparison 2004-2013
*Average of Tompkins County municipalities is derived from town and village mill rates and does not include smaller designated areas within towns and villages, which may vary. Analysis of Impediments
City of Ithaca • New York 59
3 Overview
Blank Page
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
60 City of Ithaca • New York 60 21
CHAPTER EDUCATION/OUTREACH 4 Fair Housing Profile
Tompkins County Office of Human Rights staff: Sarah Simmons, James Douglas, Karen Baer, and Carmen Arroyo.
THE TOMPKINS COUNTY OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS (OHR)
OHR develops and facilitates County-wide as well as City-targeted programs in their efforts to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. OHR Mayor Svante Myrick’s dream, “An affordable home for every family.” engages in a broad strategy of collaboration, partnership, and dialogue with local, state, and federal organizations and local I Have a Dream For Tompkins County Campaign stakeholders in providing workshops, trainings, and other programs One of the interactive activities shared with the public that will increase understanding of the rights and responsibilities of is the “I Have a Dream for Tompkins County citizens in regards to fair housing law. For example — Campaign.” Participants are asked to complete the
Who Wants To Be A Fair Housing Champion? sentence, “My dream for Human Rights in Game Show Tompkins County is . . .” on a colorful form and Modeled after a popular TV game show, “Who have their picture taken with it. These Wants to be a Fair Housing Champion?” is an pictures are shared on public media and interactive training model that engages in the Office of Human Rights as a participants in a series of multiple-choice way to engage the community in questions about fair housing rights and considering the direction responsibilities. The game has been needed to further human adapted for realtor, landlord, rights in our area. tenant, and human service advocate Housing concerns are often audiences. The process of playing the voiced through this activity. game presents questions and brings about Community Events discussions of real life issues that housing The Office of Human Rights and stakeholders face. the Tompkins County Human Fair Housing Law/AFFH Compliance Rights Commission work Workshops together to set up a table at Training for nonprofit organizations, government employees, community events and provide materials and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holders and recipients of federal interactive activities that Affirmatively Further Fair funds. Housing in the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County.
Fair Housing Brochures Materials Real Estate Ad Screening Two fair housing brochures: “Landlord Rights” and “Tenant Rights” In addition to providing workshops for realtors and have been created to help educate homeseekers and housing landlords, OHR reviews real estate ads weekly to providers about their rights and responsibilities. These landlord and ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act. When tenant brochures have been widely distributed throughout the problematic and illegal advertisements are found, County. OHR contacts the realtor or landlord as well as the publisher involved to give them an opportunity to Fair Housing Month Education/Outreach — including legislative remove the discriminatory ad. proclamations, newspaper, radio, and bus ads. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 61
ENFORCEMENT 4 FH Profile CHAPTER 4 Fair Housing Profile
Federal Fair Housing New York State Fair Housing U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development NYS Division of Human Rights (SDHR)
Under the Federal Fair Housing Law (Fair Housing The laws of New York State prohibit discrimination in Amendments Act of 1988), it is illegal to discriminate housing on the basis of age, creed, race, color, sex, sexual against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, orientation, national origin, marital status, disability, handicap (disability), national origin, or familial status military status, or familial status (including children under (including children under the age of 18 living with the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and pregnant women, and people securing custody of children people securing custody of children under the age of under the age of 18) in the sale or rental of housing. 18) in the sale or rental of housing. Complaints may be filed with the SDHR. Complaints may be filed with the U.S. Department The SDHR is the prime resource for the filing of of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of complaints for violations of federal and state fair housing Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). HUD will laws. SDHR has a contract with HUD to investigate investigate the complaint and try to conciliate the complaints and make determinations regarding reasonable matter with both parties. If conciliation fails, HUD will cause. Cases which cover violations of federal and state determine whether "reasonable cause" exists to fair housing laws are dually filed by SDHR. People have one believe that a discriminatory housing practice has taken year from the alleged discrimination to file a complaint. place. If HUD finds "no reasonable cause," the SDHR (and HUD/FHEO) have 100 days to investigate the complaint will be dismissed. complaint. Complaints with probable cause, which cannot If HUD finds reasonable cause, HUD will issue a be mediated through a fact-finding conference, then have charge of discrimination and schedule a hearing before a hearing with an administrative judge. The decisions of a HUD administrative law judge (ALJ). Either party may the administrative hearing judge are sent to the SDHR elect to proceed in federal court. In that case, the Commissioner who approves the final decision. The Department of Justice will pursue the case on behalf of Commissioner has the right to adjust the decisions and any the complainant. The decisions of the ALJ and the award amount. The decisions of the Commissioner are federal district court are subject to review by the U.S. sent to HUD for their information. The NYS Attorney Court of Appeals. The nearest HUD office is in Buffalo, General’s Office functions as the enforcement agency for New York, approximately 160 miles from Ithaca. non-compliance with SDHR findings. In such cases, the NYS Attorney General’s Office may take the non-complying party to court to enforce the SDHR findings. The nearest SDHR office is located in Binghamton, New York, approximately fifty miles from Ithaca. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 62 12
ENFORCEMENT 4 FH Profile
Tompkins County Fair Housing Under Ithaca City Code §215, the added protections to Office of Human Rights (OHR) state and federal law include height, weight, ethnicity,
immigration/citizen status, and socioeconomic status Tompkins County Code §92 was promulgated in 1991 for the (Table 20). purpose of supplementing NYS Human Rights Law at a time The local law does not grant or identify specific when State protections were limiting. It offers protection enforcement powers or otherwise provide for any based solely on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender meaningful mechanism by which complaints arising within expression. the jurisdiction may be processed. To wit, a complainant It is important to note that from the mid 1980’s to 2008, alleging housing discrimination within the City is simply the OHR operated under a cooperative agreement (MOU) with advised to pursue a lawsuit or file a complaint with the OHR, the SDHR, giving the local agency power to enforce NYS SDHR, or HUD. Human Rights Law up to the point of a finding of reasonable No Tompkins County or City of Ithaca resident has sought cause. In 2008, however, the SDHR withdrew its MOU powers, to file a discrimination complaint under City Code §215 or thereby limiting the agency’s enforcement powers solely to the County Code §92 in recent history. complaints arising under County Code §92. Under County Code §92, a complaint may be investigated in order to ascertain a probable cause determination. At any Table 20. Fair Housing Protections for City of Ithaca Residents time after the filing of the complaint, parties may enter into a voluntary conciliation agreement to settle the complaint. If the investigation is completed and probable cause is NYS Tompkins City of determined, a complainant is advised to pursue a lawsuit in Protected Class HUD State County Ithaca the appropriate state or federal court. Furthermore, County Charter §23 grants OHR the authority Race X X X to receive and attempt to resolve complaints locally for a Color X X X broader range of protected classes, prior to referring them to Religion X X X the SDHR or HUD. To further this objective, OHR has Sex X X X established a Pre-Complaint Conciliation (PCC) Program to National Origin X X X resolve complaints prior to state/federal referral or filing. If Familial Status X X OHR is unable to resolve a complaint through voluntary Disability X X X conciliation measures, the complainant has been referred to Age X X
either the SDHR or HUD. Creed X X Most recently, however, OHR has entered into a Marital Status X X cooperative agreement with CNY Fair Housing, Inc., a FHIP- Sexual Orientation X X X funded Qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization Military Status X X (QFHEO) located in Syracuse, New York. In December 2014, Gender Identity or HUD added Tompkins County to CNYFH’s catchment area, Expression X X allowing fair housing complaints arising in the City of Ithaca Ethnicity X and Tompkins County to be referred to CNYFH for private Gender X enforcement purposes. Height X Immigration/Citizen City of Ithaca Fair Housing (City Code §215) Status X
The City of Ithaca promulgated its local anti-discrimination law Socioeconomic in 2003, protecting persons in the areas of employment, Status X housing, credit, public accommodation, education, and Weight X volunteer fire departments. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 63
ENFORCEMENT 4 FH Profile
There were thirty-four (34) fair housing complaints filed in Compared to the Fair Housing complaints filed nation-wide Tompkins County between 2005 and 2014, with 24 complaints with HUD between 2010 and 2013 (Figure 60), originating from Ithaca (City and Town) (Table 21). Complaints Ithaca/Tompkins County had proportionally fewer complaints were filed with the Tompkins County Office of Human Rights based on Disability, Race/Color, National Origin, Sex, (OHR), New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), and/or Retaliation, and Religion. Ithaca/Tompkins County did have a the U.S. Department of HUD. greater proportion of complaints based on Familial Status. In addition, as part of OHR’s enforcement strategy, it HUD data does not have jurisdiction, per se, over complaints regularly assists persons with disabilities in the drafting of and/or based on Sexual Orientation, but may be considered under requesting on their behalf pre-complaint requests for Reasonable Sex. NYS and Tompkins County local anti-discrimination laws Accommodation/Modifications from housing providers. both provide Sexual Orientation protection.
Religion Table 21. Number of Complaints by Location Retalia on 9.50% 3%
Complaint Location Number Sex 11.50% Ithaca (City/Town) 24 Tompkins County 7* Other 3 Na onal Disability Origin 49.75% TOTAL 34 12.50% 3 Annual Report on Fair Housing *Trumansburg (3), Dryden (3), Etna (1)
Source: SDHR/HUD/OHR Complaint Data. Familial Status
Of the thirty-four (34) housing discrimination complaints, 43 14.75% Race/Color : HUD 2012/201 percent were filed on the basis of Disability — more than double 32.75% the amount of complaints on the basis of Familial Status, the Source next most frequent basis. Race, Color, National Origin, and Sex Figure 60. Nation-Wide Complaints each accounted for 10 percent of complaints. Religion and by Basis (2010-2013) Sexual Orientation each were 4 percent of complaints, and Retaliation was 2 percent (Figure 59).
Sexual
Retalia on Religion 2% Orienta on 4% 4%
Familial Status 2014 Sex - 10% 17%
Race/Color 10%
Na onal Origin
SDHR Complaint Data 2005 10%
: Disability 43% Source
Figure 59. Ithaca and Tompkins County Complaints
by Basis 2005-2014 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 64
ENFORCEMENT 4 FH Profile Enforcement Action Data (con’t) Tompkins County Dispositions. Nearly three quarters of National Dispositions. Nation-wide statistics for fair housing complaints in Tompkins County resulted in “No Cause” complaints filed with HUD between 2010 and 2013 are as findings or were dismissed, with 9 percent of complaints follows — 37 percent were Settled, 35 percent resulted in a being dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction by the agency. No Cause Determination, 25 percent were Administratively As shown in Figure 61 on the following page, Closed, 2 percent resulted in a Probable Cause Finding, and 1 approximately 18 percent of complaints were either percent were referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for settled (9 percent) or resulted in a “Probable Cause” prosecution (Figure 62). finding (9 percent) (Figure 61). Definitions of dispositions follow.
No Cause: The investigating agency did not find cause to believe that discrimination occurred. Se led No Cause 37% Charge/Judicial Order: The investigating agency 35% found cause to believe that discrimination occurred, and the complaint is referred to an administrative
hearing (SDHR) or the Department of Justice to 3 Annual Report on Fair Housing prosecute in federal court (HUD). 201
- Administrative Closure: The investigating agency was unable to proceed with the complaint, either Administra ve Closure Charged due to lack of jurisdiction, lack of cooperation from Refered to DOJ
2% : HUD 2012 the Complainant, or the complaint being withdrawn. 1% 25%
Settled: Complainant and Respondent agreed to Source settle the complaint. Figure 62. HUD Complaints by Disposition 2013
Until 2008, the OHR enjoyed a Memorandum of Se led Understanding (MOU) with the SDHR to investigate and make Cause/Judicial 9% determinations for complaints filed within Tompkins County. Order After the MOU expired in 2008, complaints filed with the OHR 9% were forwarded either to the SDHR or HUD for investigation, unless all parties agreed to participate in OHR’s Pre-Complaint
Conciliation Program (Figure 63). Administra ve Closure 9% 7 *Memorandum of Understanding 6 between SDHR and OHR expires 5 6 No Cause 4 5 5 73% 3 4 4 2 3 1 2 2 2 Number of Complaints Filed 0 1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 61. Tompkins County Complaints YEAR by Disposition 2005-2014
Figure 63. Tompkins County Complaint Volume Source: SDHR/HUD/OHR Complaint Data Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 65
VIOLENCE DATA 4 FH Profile Hate Crime/Domestic Violence Data Hate Crimes Table 22. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services Hate crimes, also called bias crimes or bias-related Hate Crime Incidents in Tompkins County by Agency crimes, are criminal activity motivated by the perpetrator’s bias or attitude against an individual TOMPKINS COUNTY victim or group based on perceived or actual personal 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 characteristics, such as their race, religion, ethnicity, Ithaca City Police 9 4 0 3 1 sexual orientation, or disability. Hate crimes have Cornell University received renewed attention in recent years, since the Police 1 1 0 3 2 passage of the federal Hate/Bias Crime Reporting Act of 1990. Ithaca College Police 0 0 0 0 1 The Hate/Bias Crime Reporting Act did not make hate crimes a new category of crime, but rather County Total 10 5 0 6 4 mandated that all crimes that are judged to be based on Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Uniform Crime Reporting System (as of 5/20/2014) racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, or disability biases must be reported both as hate/bias crimes and Table 23. Domestic Violence Victims Reported in 2013 under their normal offense categories. Tompkins County/City of Ithaca According to the State Division of Criminal Justice Services, hate crimes in New York State grew 30 percent between 2011 and 2012, to a total of 702 incidents in 2013. In 2012, Tompkins County had six incidents and two arrests, with none occurring in 2011 (Table 22).
Domestic Violence Protections
On November 18, 2014 the Tompkins County Legislature, by unanimous vote approved a resolution declaring “Freedom from Domestic Violence a Fundamental Human Right.” The measure notes, in part, the pervasive, long-lasting negative effects of domestic violence — transcending distinctions of Gender, Sexual Orientation, Race, Age, Nationality,
Religion, and Economic Status, and causing long-lasting effects on its survivors and on children who are exposed to domestic violence (Table 23). On March 4, 2015 the City of Ithaca followed suit and became the 23rd local government body in the United States to pass a resolution declaring freedom from domestic violence a human right. The resolution calls on all City departments to incorporate the principle of freedom from domestic violence in their policies and practices. The Tompkins County Integrated Domestic Violence Court (IDV Court) is a specialized court designed to better serve families experiencing domestic violence by creating a “one-family one-judge” concept for victims of domestic violence and their families. Source: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Uniform Crime Reporting system (as
of 4/27/2014) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 66 12
PRIVATE LENDING 4 FH Profile CRA/HMDA Observations Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) After CRA data are evaluated by the FFIEC, it is rated. These
The CRA requires that subject financial institutions seek to ratings range from “substantial noncompliance” to enhance community development within the area they serve. “outstanding record” of meeting the credit needs of the On a regular basis, financial institutions submit information to community. the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Discrimination Act (HMDA) about their mortgage loan applications in order to document HMDA data are widely used to detect evidence of their community development activity. discrimination in mortgage lending. The variables contained in The CRA was enacted largely in response to discriminatory the HMDA dataset have expanded over time, allowing for more lending practices that effectively prevented non-white families comprehensive analyses and better results. However, despite from obtaining mortgages. Historically, lending institutions expansions in the data reported, HMDA analyses remain limited either did not originate mortgages, or charged higher rates, in because of information that is not reported. certain areas of cities due to perceived risks, usually not related The HMDA data below (Table 24) include loans used to to a particular applicant, but to characteristics of a purchase homes, as well as loans to make home improvements. neighborhood, such as crime rate or racial composition. This These transactions are separated into two primary loan practice perpetuated residential segregation and denied mostly categories: 1) conventional loans and 2) government non-white families the benefits of homeownership. guaranteed loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).
Table 24. Loans by Type and Census Tract Tompkins County 2013
% Home Home % Home Non- Non- % Non- Census FHA FHA % FHA Convent'l Convent'l Convent'l Improve Improve Improve Occupant Occupant Occupant Tract Originated Denied Denied Origin Denied Denied Origin Denied Denied Originated Denied Denied 1 0 0 0% 2 0 0% 2 0 0% 2 0 0% 2 0 0 0% 4 1 25% 5 0 0% 12 0 0% 3 1 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 1 0 0% 4 0 0 0% 3 0 0% 2 0 0% 0 0 0% 5 1 0 0% 32 1 3% 3 2 66% 5 1 20% 6 1 1 50% 47 1 2% 13 3 23% 14 2 14% 7 4 0 0% 25 2 8% 13 0 0% 13 3 23% 8 1 0 0% 18 2 11% 5 1 20% 8 3 38% 9 7 0 0% 45 2 4% 9 2 22% 8 1 13% 10 1 0 0% 31 5 16% 7 2 28% 11 4 36% 11 1 1 50% 55 3 5% 12 3 25% 19 8 42% 13 8 0 0% 66 1 1% 24 3 13% 26 3 11% 14 5 0 0% 31 5 16% 15 2 13% 4 1 25% 15 8 2 25% 65 5 7% 20 1 5% 9 1 11% 16 6 0 0% 34 2 6% 26 7 27% 10 0 0% 17 3 1 33% 17 8 47% 33 9 27% 8 2 25% 18 10 0 0% 29 10 34% 33 9 27% 5 1 20% 19 10 1 10% 46 7 15% 32 7 22% 14 4 28% 20 9 0 0% 38 7 18% 19 2 10% 6 0 0% 21 6 1 17% 26 2 8% 19 6 13% 3 0 0% 22 11 4 36% 43 11 25% 46 6 13% 7 3 43% 23 12 1 8% 52 4 8% 33 5 15% 9 3 33%
Source: HMDA Aggregate Data, Table 1 City of Ithaca Tompkins County City of Ithaca/Tompkins County
* FFIEC Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ** Census Reports
City of Ithaca • New York 67 12
FH Profile PRIVATE LENDING CRA/HMDA Observations (con’t) 4
Studies of lending disparities that use HMDA data always carry a caveat. HMDA data can be used to determine disparities in loan originations and interest rates among borrowers of different races, ethnicities, genders, and by the location of the property they hope to own. The data can also be used to explain many of the reasons for any lending disparities (e.g., poor credit history). However, HMDA data do not contain all of the factors that must be evaluated by lending institutions when they decide to make a loan to a borrower. So, although the data provide a lot of information about a lending decision — it does not provide all of the : HMDA Aggregate Data, Table 1
information needed to reveal Source discriminatory practices. HMDA data can be used to identify where additional scrutiny is warranted and how public education and outreach Figure 65. Conventional Mortgages Denied efforts should be targeted. A review of private lending practices in the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County did not reveal any significant barriers in lending to protected classes. There are two financial institutions based in Tompkins County subject to CRA reporting. First National Bank of Dryden was rated “Satisfactory” in 2011. Tompkins Trust Company was rated “Outstanding” in 2014.* In addition, no census tracts within the City of Ithaca or Tompkins County were considered by the FFIEC to be distressed or
Figure 64. FHA Mortgages Denied. underserved** (Figures 64 and 65). Table 25. Sub-Recipients of HOME or CDBG * FFIEC Funds 2004-2014 ** Census Reports 7th Art Corporation of Ithaca List of CDBG/HOME Sub-Recipients Advocacy Center Catholic Charities Obligation to AFFH — Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Challenge Industries Housing Act) requires HUD to administer its programs in a way that affirmatively Child Development Council furthers fair housing (AFFH). The laws that establish the Community Development Community Housing of Ithaca Block Grant (CDBG) program, the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Cornell Cooperative Extension (CHAS), and the Public Housing Authority Plan (PHA Plan) each require Day Car Council of Tompkins County
jurisdictions to certify in writing that they are making AFFH efforts. Downtown Ithaca Alliance Drop-In Childcare Center States must assure that units of local government receiving CDBG or HOME Finger Lakes Independence Center funds comply. States and local governments must certify that they are Finger Lakes ReUse affirmatively furthering fair housing in their Consolidated Plans (ConPlans) and Foodnet Public Housing Agency Plans (PHA Plans). Recipients of HUD funding include, but Greater Ithaca Activities Center are not limited to, public housing authorities, CDBG entitlement entities, and Historic Ithaca, Inc. private organizations receiving HUD grant monies. Recipients must ensure full Human Services Coalition compliance with these federal laws and must also ensure compliance by all sub- Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Ithaca Housing Authority recipients to whom funds are distributed. Ithaca Health Alliance As an Entitlement Community, the City of Ithaca provides CDBG and HOME funds Kitchen Theater Company to a good number of community organizations and specific projects. These sub- Lifelong recipients are also required to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Since 2007, the Mutual Housing Association City of Ithaca has awarded CDBG and HOME funds to nearly 30 unique non-profit Red Cross organizations. While several sub-recipients are professional housing SewGreen development companies, most are not; rather they have small staffs and a Skilled Trades Diversity Council The Learning Web primary mission that is not necessarily housing related. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Tompkins Community Action
City of Ithaca • New York 68 1
4 FH Profile FAIR HOUSING TESTING
CNY Fair Housing (CNYFH)
What Is Fair Housing Testing? CNYFH conducted all fair housing tests and provided
specialized training for all testers participating in this Housing discrimination, or lack of fair housing choice, encompasses AI project. CNYFH is a HUD-Qualified Fair Housing a variety of actions directed against people of a different religion, Enforcement Organization (QFHEO) based in race, color, national origin, age, sex, familial status, military status, Syracuse, New York that serves eight counties in the sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, disability, or marital Central New York region, including Tompkins County. status, and impedes their ability to access housing. Housing discrimination can take many forms, including: There were thirty (30) paired tests performed in • Steering people and families to or away from a particular neighborhood, apartment complex, or condominium project; Tompkins County to ascertain whether certain types
• Charging a higher security deposit or offering different terms of housing discrimination were occurring. Fourteen and conditions, use of facilities, or other services associated (14) tests occurred at properties located within the with the rental, sale, or financing of housing; City of Ithaca and the remaining sixteen (16) tests • Employing different qualifying standards, including closer occurred at properties throughout Tompkins County. scrutiny of credit history for some; Six (6) tests were performed through on-site visits to • Saying that housing is not available to view, buy, or rent when it is in fact available; and the rental property, and 24 tests were done via telephone calls to rental agents. • Harassing buyers or renters who exercise Fair Housing rights, and harassing sellers, rental agents, or real estate agents who Four (4) tests were performed for each of the refuse to discriminate. following Federal protections of the Fair Housing Act:
Fair housing testing, as practiced in the past decade or so, has Race, Disability, Familial Status, National Origin, and become an effective tool in uncovering such practices and is now a Sex. discrete part of the effort to combat discrimination in housing. For Two (2) tests were performed for each of the example, in the past, when persons belonging to a protected class following New York State and Tompkins County found themselves being turned away because “the apartment is no Human Rights Laws: Sexual Orientation and Gender longer available,” the only remedy was to show that the unit was Identity/Expression, Marital Status, Military Status, actually available and that the denial of the rental was rather a and Age. consequence of a discriminatory animus on the part of the rental “Source of Income” discrimination in housing is not agent. The problem was, however, that there was usually no direct a protected class by either Federal or State law, but is evidence of discriminatory animus; and the rental agent could protected by seven local laws in New York State easily assert that while there may have been a vacancy, the because it is increasingly known to be a barrier to applicant was not creditworthy. people in the community utilizing forms of public A fair housing test, however, may help bolster such a claim by assistance to find housing. Four (4) tests were possibly obtaining evidence that a similarly situated home seeker performed for Source of Income exclusions. who was not a member of a protected class was treated more favorably in terms of information provided and any stated DEFINITIONS
conditions of tenancy. Evidence: Indicates evidence of significant During this AI testing project, each rental unit was tested by a differences in treatment (not necessarily evidence trained pair of testers — a Control Tester (not belonging to a of illegal housing discrimination.) protected class) and a Protected Tester (having a protected NSD: Indicates “no significant difference” in the characteristic being tested for; e.g., Black, female, disabled, treatment or information received by the testers lesbian, etc.). The Control and Protected testers were similarly (used when the testers experiences are situated in every other aspect except for the protected comparable.) characteristic. Both pairs of testers documented and reported their experiences. The CNYFH Test Coordinator then reviewed and Inconclusive: Indicates when comparison and analysis are not possible (i.e., the property is no analyzed the reports to see if the testers were treated significantly longer available, one or both testers are unable to different during the process of trying to rent an apartment. make contact with an agent, etc.) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 69 21
4 FH Profile FAIR HOUSING TESTING Summary of Findings
Of the thirty (30) tests performed, 19 percent tested positive for Familial Status. Four (4) tests were conducted on the “Evidence;” 46 percent of tests resulted in “No Significant basis of Familial Status, yielding two (2) with Evidence, Difference” (NSD); and 35 percent of tests were deemed one (1) No Significant Difference, and one (1) “Inconclusive” (Figure 66 and Table 26). Evidence findings occurred Inconclusive. In the first Evidence test, a single mother for tests for Disability, Familial Status, and Age. Protected Tester was steered away from an Testing for Race, National Origin, Marital Fair Housing Testing apartment located in a neighborhood Status, Sexual Orientation, Gender (n=30) adjacent to Cornell. University. In the Identity/Expression, and Sex yielded either second Evidence test, the Protected
NSD or Inconclusive results. Tests for Evidence Testers inquired about the Military Status found no discriminatory 19% availability of a one-bedroom indicators. All four (4) “Source of Inconclusive apartment in a complex located 35% Income” testers were rejected by in the Collegetown area. After housing providers. But, since Source of No Significant disclosing that she was Income is not a protected category Difference pregnant, the Protected Tester under state and federal law, results are 46% was told by the rental agent, “Oh, not factored into testing totals. we only rent to college students.” The Protected Tester replied that she Figure 66. Fair Housing Race. Four (4) tests were conducted on the Testing Results was a student at Ithaca College and was basis of Race. Three (3) of the tests found No then told, “We only rent to Cornell Significant Difference between the paired testers and one students in these complexes.” The Protected (1) test was deemed Inconclusive, based on the identified unit Tester was subsequently directed to a downtown becoming unavailable during the testing period. apartment complex, with the agent suggesting, “They may have more flexibility in terms of tenants.” Disability. Four (4) tests were conducted on the basis of One test was determined to be Inconclusive because the Disability, two (2) were found with Evidence, and two were found property became unavailable during testing. to be Inconclusive. In the first Evidence test, the Protected Tester was told that service dogs were not allowed and that no Age. Two (2) tests were conducted on the basis of Age. exceptions would be made. In the second Evidence test, the One (1) test was determined to show Evidence because Protected Tester was told by the rental agent that they did not the rental agent expressed a preference for older allow emotional support animals at the unit in question and students over younger students. During the same test, steered the tester to a different unit. In one of the Inconclusive the rental agent also informed the Protected Tester that
tests, both testers were informed that the apartment would not only one person was allowed in the one-bedroom be available until a future date, at which point the Control Tester apartment, thus providing Evidence of a preference stopped negotiating for the unit, while the Protected Tester, based on either familial or marital status. The second continued to gather information. test for age found No Significant Difference in treatment between the Control and Protected Testers. National Origin. Four (4) tests were conducted on the basis of National Origin. Two (2) tests found No Significant Difference and Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity and two (2) were Inconclusive. Expression. Two (2) tests were conducted on the basis
of either Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity and Sex. Two (2) tests were conducted on the basis of Sex. One test Expression. The first test found No Significant Difference found No Significant Difference and the other was Inconclusive. In in treatment between the testers. The second test was the Inconclusive test, the female Protected Tester called a rental deemed Inconclusive because the paired testers spoke agent three times over a 4-day period to inquire about an with different rental agents. apartment but never received a call back from the agent. The
male Control Tester was able to speak with the rental agent on his
first attempt. Both testers made their first call to the agent on the
same day. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 70
FH Profile FAIR HOUSING TESTING 4 Summary of Findings (con’t)
Marital Status. Two (2) tests were conducted on the basis of Marital Status. The first test found No Significant Difference in treatment between the paired testers and the second test was Inconclusive.
Military Status. Two (2) tests were conducted on the basis of Military Status. In each test, Protected Testers informed rental agents that they were members of the National Guard and frequently traveled for duty. Neither test showed any inference of discrimination.
Source of Income. Four (4) tests were conducted on the basis of Source of Income. In each test, the Protected Tester informed the rental agent that an HCV would be used to pay a portion of his or her rent. All Section 8 testers were either outright rejected, steered to other properties, or refused based on the Section 8 agency’s security deposit policy. Again, Source of Income is not currently an unlawful form of discrimination, even though excluding persons based on their participation in local, state, or federal housing subsidy programs has a disparate impact on protected groups.
Table 26. Results of Testing by Protected Class No Significant Total Evidence of Difference # of Protected Class Discrimination (NSD) Inconclusive Tests Race 0 3 1 4
Disability 2 0 2 4 Familial Status 2 1 1 4 Sexual Orientation/GI 0 1 1 2 National Origin 0 2 2 4 Marital Status 0 1 1 2 Military Status 0 2 0 2 Age 1 1 0 2 Sex 0 1 1 2
Total 5 12 9 26
Source of Income* 4 0 0 30
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 71
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Summary Report It is valuable during an AI analysis process to reach out to a broad section of residents in order to measure the community climate around issues of housing choice — both in terms of reality and perception. For this analysis, OHR utilized two surveys, one conducted in random style and the other targeted to disenfranchised groups. Both surveys asked a series of questions about one’s values related to housing choice, as well as individual experiences with and/or perceptions about discrimination. Please keep in mind that although “Survey A” is considered quantitative and “Survey B” is qualitative in terms of methodology, both surveys elicited anecdotal responses. Therefore, these surveys are not intended to be a measurement of the incidence of illegal discrimination; but rather should serve to illustrate known impediments or identify for further study impediments not otherwise known. Table 27. Weights Applied to Survey Data
<55 years 55+ years Background & Objectives RESIDENCE old old
WBA Research was commissioned by the Tompkins County Office of City of Ithaca 0.7197 0.1144 Human Rights (OHR) to assist with the collecting of data for a Fair T/Ithaca 6.5978 0.8900 Housing Choice Project. While the umbrella project consisted of T/Caroline 16.187 1.4459 multiple data collection components, WBA’s role was mainly to V/Cayuga Heights 7.1036 0.9813 administer a quantitative research survey to assess the extent to which T/Danby 5.2259 1.0624 Tompkins County residents are aware of and impacted by housing T/Dryden 7.4944 1.3879 discrimination (Table 27). V/Dryden 9.4483 1.3576 V/Freeville 2.4894 0.6253 Survey Methodology T/Enfield 6.1406 1.1695 Some of the specific details of the quantitative research aspect of this T/Groton 8.6262 0.7653 project are as follows: V/Groton 5.0773 2.4807 T/Lansing 6.2456 1.1690 ¥ The survey was conducted by mail in the form of a four-page booklet V/Lansing 10.838 1.0276 printed on folded 11x17 paper — first page cover letter plus three T/Newfield 3.9657 0.8214 survey pages (see Appendix). T/Ulysses 4.6963 1.4947 ¥ Surveys were mailed on June 20, 2014 and respondents were given V/Trumansburg 3.1957 1.2366 until July 31, 2014 to return the completed questionnaire directly to
WBA Research in the provided postage-paid envelope. Anything received by August 6, 2014 was included in the analysis.
¥ The mailing was sent to a list of 4,000 randomly selected Tompkins County residents, provided by SDR Sampling Services.
¥ Residents from the City of Ithaca were oversampled (2,400 vs. 1,600 from the rest of the county) to ensure that we received a high enough response from this group to be able to reliably analyze their results. Weights were applied (using 2010 Census data) so that the results were not skewed by over-representing City residents. These weights also factored in age, since older individuals are more likely to respond to surveys in general.
¥ In total, 727 Tompkins County residents completed and returned the survey for an overall response rate of 18 percent. Originally, it was anticipated that a reminder mailing would be necessary to experience that magnitude of response (and to achieve the goal of at least 600 completed surveys), but this proved to be unnecessary.
¥ For questions that allowed “other” responses, codes/groupings were created to allow those responses to be included in the analysis.
¥ The report that follows summarizes the findings of this portion of the research.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 72
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Methodology Standard Error Rate Because in research the entire population is typically not interviewed, but rather a Please Make N ote sample of that population is surveyed, the data are subject to sampling error. A When Reading This sample size of 727 will yield data with a maximum fluctuation of ±3.6 percentage Survey Report points at the 95 percent confidence level. However, the actual standard error may be smaller, depending on the data being examined. Caution should be used when ¥ Percentages may not add up to drawing conclusions about subgroups with smaller sample sizes, as the error is far 100 percent due to rounding, or greater. Standard errors are shown below for various study percentages and because multiple responses were different sample sizes, at the 95 percent confidence level. allowed. ¥ Percentages reported are from Table 28. Standard Error Rate weighted data, however the 40% 30% 20% 10% 1% base size (n) shown will be or or or or or unweighted as this is relevant to If the study percentage is around: 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 99% calculating standard error and impacts the determination of Then, the standard error in significant differences. percentage points is: ¥ Respondents were not required to answer any questions; Total Sample (n=727) ±3.6 ±3.6 ±3.3 ±2.9 ±2.2 ±0.7 percentages are calculated from Subgroup (n=400) ±4.9 ±4.8 ±4.5 ±3.9 ±2.9 ±1.0 the number of people Subgroup (n=200) ±6.9 ±6.8 ±6.4 ±5.5 ±4.2 ±1.4 responding to each question. ¥ Significant differences at the 95 Subgroup (n=100) ±9.8 ±9.6 ±9.0 ±7.8 ±5.9 ±2.0 percent confidence level are Subgroup (n=50) ±13.9 ±13.6 ±12.7 ±11.1 ±8.3 ±2.8 highlighted with either a (statistically higher than the group(s) to which it is being For example, if a question yielded a percentage of 20 percent among the Total Sample, then we can be sure 95 out of 100 times that the true percentage would lie between 17.1 percent and 22.9 percent (20 compared) or (statistically percent ±2.9 percentage points). lower than the group(s) to which
it is being compared). If a number appears to be different but is not highlighted, it is not statistically different. The difference might be indicative of trends in the data, but caution should be used in drawing strong conclusions about differences that are not statistical. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 73
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Detailed Findings
Table 29. Demographic Profile of Survey Sample Total Unweighted Total Weighted (n=727) (n=715)
# % # % Survey Profile The first step in understanding the Residence (Q1) experiences and perceptions of the audience City of Ithaca 446 61 126 18 studied is to have a clear picture of who was surveyed. The only requirement for Town of Ithaca 72 10 126 18 participation in this study was that they be a current resident of Tompkins County. As Other Tompkins County 207 28 463 65 explained in the methodology, City of Ithaca Sex (Q20) residents were oversampled to make sure enough were included to allow for a reliable Male 285 39 295 41 analysis of this group. The unweighted data show how big each group is in the original Female 431 59 413 58 data, which is important in determining the Age (Q21) amount of potential error in the data – i.e., the larger the group, the lower the error. The 18-34 17 2 55 8 weighted data reflects how much influence that group has in the overall results. 35-54 163 22 381 53 55-74 385 53 203 28
75+ 152 21 76 11
Children (Q19)
None 594 82 514 72
Any 119 16 195 27
Income (Q25)
$40,000 or less 235 32 188 26
$40,001 - $80,000 233 32 230 32
More than $80,000 218 30 273 38
Race (Q23)
White 658 91 663 93
Minority 72 10 65 9
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 74
4 FH Profile “SURVEY A” — Quantitative Housing Choice
Are City of Ithaca/Tompkins County residents living in their preferred part of the county, or does housing affordability affect this choice? One-fifth (20 percent) of those surveyed say they would move to another part of the county if more Table 30. Housing Location Preferences affordable housing options were available, with
the largest portion (43 percent, or roughly 9 (Q1) (Q3b) percent overall) expressing a desire to move into Currently Live Would Like to the City (Figure 67 and Table 30). in… Live in… (n=725) (n=116) % %
City of Ithaca 18 43 T/Ithaca 18 10
T/Caroline 4 0 V/Cayuga Heights 4 2 Yes, 20% T/Danby 4 6 T/Dryden 14 9 V/Dryden 2 0 V/Freeville 1 0 T/Enfield 4 1
T/Groton 4 0 V/Groton 3 5
No, 80% T/Lansing 9 1 V/Lansing 4 1 Figure 67. (Q3a) Would Consider Moving Elsewhere in Tompkins County T/Newfield 5 13 if More Affordable Housing Options Available (n=699) T/Ulysses 6 7 V/Trumansburg 2 2 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 75
4 FH Profile “SURVEY A” — Quantitative Housing Choice (con’t)
100% One-fifth (20 percent) of surveyed Tompkins County residents are currently in a rental situation (Figure 69). Of 80% 62% those, nearly two-thirds (62 percent, or 12 percent overall) 60% say they would be interested in purchasing a home in the 38% 40% next five years (Figure 68). Among homeowners (79 percent), the vast majority (77 percent, or roughly 61 20% percent overall) have no plans to change their housing 0% situation. However, about one out of ten (13 percent of Yes No this group, or roughly 10% overall) are thinking about Figure 68. (Q5) downsizing in this time period (Figure 70). Interested in Purchasing Home in Next Five Years (n=119)
Other, 1%
Rent, 20%
Own, 79%
Figure 69. (Q4) Current Housing Situation (n=719)
100% 77% 80% 60%
40% 13% 20% 7% 6% 5% 0%
Figure 70. (Q6) Interested in Changing in Next 5 Years (n=580) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 76
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Housing Choice (con’t)
Overall, nearly one-fourth of those considering making housing changes in the next five years cite credit problems (24 percent) and/or lack of transportation (22 percent) as the issues preventing them from moving to a preferable housing situation. Credit problems are particularly challenging for renters (43 percent vs. 8 percent of homeowners). Fear of discrimination is also more of a factor for renters (15 percent) compared to homeowners (1 percent) (Figure 71).
24% Credit problems 8% 43%
22% Lack of transporta on 12% 33%
12% Access to services 10% 15%
7% Fear of discrimina on 1% 15%
4% Age/Disability - Accessibility 5% <1% Total (n=227) 1% Owners (n=173) Availability of housing that meets my needs 2% 1% Renters (n=41)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 71. (Q7) Issues (Other than Cost) Preventing Moving to Preferred Housing (top mentions) (among those who may consider housing change in next 5 years) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 77
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Housing Choice (con’t)
Overall, fewer than one out of ten (7 percent) Tompkins County residents report receiving assistance to help pay for housing (Figure 72). Of Yes, 7% those, the vast majority (83 percent, or roughly 6 percent overall) are getting Section 8 housing assistance (Figure 73).
No, 93%
Figure 72. (Q8a) Receive Assistance to Help Pay for Housing (n=716)
100% 83% 80%
60%
40%
20% 7% 9%
0% Sec on 8 Public Housing Other
Figure 73. (Q8b) Type of Housing Assistance (n=53) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 78
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Housing Choice (con’t)
City of Ithaca/Tompkins County residents are generally satisfied with their current housing situation (84 percent rating of 4-5 on a 5-point scale). Those without children are more satisfied than those with (91 percent vs. 67 percent respectively), and owners are happier than renters (92 percent vs. 51 percent). The youngest residents surveyed tend to be least satisfied (51 percent of 18-34 year-olds vs. 85-93 percent of older residents) (Figure 74).
TOTAL 6% 10% 84% n
City 6% 13% 81% (679)
Not City 6% 9% 85% (416)
18-34 years old 39% 11% 51% (263)
35-54 years old 3% 12% 85% (16)* 55-74 years old 3% 9% 87% (151) 75+ years old 5% 3% 93% (360) No Children 4% 5% 91%
(142) Any Children 10% 23% 67%
Own 2% 6% 92% (554)
Rent 23% 26% 51% (112)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% (551) Dissa sfied (1-2) Neutral (3) Sa sfied (4-5) (111) *Caution: Small base Figure 74. (Q9) Overall Satisfaction with Current Housing, by subgroups
The “good quality of life” descriptor is more prevalent among those without children (91 percent vs. 75 percent of those with children) and homeowners (95 percent vs. 54 percent of renters). Those without children in their home are also more likely to say they have enough living space (83 percent vs. 51 percent of those with children in the home) and/or live in an integrated neighborhood (48 percent vs. 27 percent). Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 79
4 FH Profile “SURVEY A” — Quantitative Housing Choice (con’t) Other characteristics reported by more owners than renters are: being good for families (84 percent vs. 45 percent), having enough living space (82 percent vs. 43 percent), and the availability of quality housing options (59 percent vs. 35 percent). Renters, on the other hand, are more likely to report having good access to public transportation (77 percent vs. 46 percent) (Table 31).
Having enough parking is more common for those living outside the City of Ithaca (80 percent vs. 66 percent of City residents). However, those living in the City are more likely to report: being close to work or work options (84 percent vs. 48 percent), being close to shopping and restaurants (77 percent vs. 49 percent), having good access to public transportation (84 percent vs. 45 percent), and to a lesser extent, having plenty of services for seniors (39 percent vs. 27 percent).
Table 31. (Q10) Descriptions of Current Housing Situation, by subgroups (4-5 ratings)
Not No Any TOTAL City City 18-34 35-54 55-74 75+ Children Children Own Rent (~675) (~425) (~250) (~15)* (~160) (~375) ( ~125) (~550) (~125) (~550) ( ~125) 1 n = % % % % % % % % % % %
Good quality of life 86 85 86 64 86 91 91 91 75 95 54
Enough parking 77 66 80 63 72 87 89 79 73 81 63
Good for families 76 80 75 52 78 78 79 75 78 84 45
Enough living space 74 68 75 35 70 85 94 83 51 82 43 Close to work/ work options 54 84 48 46 58 49 55 53 58 55 53 Close to shopping/ restaurants 54 77 49 61 56 48 55 53 58 53 60
Quality housing options available 53 60 52 48 55 52 51 53 56 59 35 Good access to public transportation 52 84 45 75 54 42 54 49 60 46 77
Affordable 45 43 45 38 41 52 50 48 36 45 42 Integrated neighborhood 42 49 40 38 43 36 59 48 27 40 51 Accessible to persons with disabilities 32 36 31 33 32 27 40 35 24 31 34 Plenty of services for Seniors 29 39 27 10 30 29 38 30 26 29 26 1 The bases (n sizes) vary by attribute since “no answers” are not included Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 80
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Housing Choice (con’t)
The two most important considerations when choosing a place to live are being in a safe neighborhood (70 percent) and/or affordability (56 percent) (Figure 75). Meanwhile, slightly fewer feel an attractive neighborhood (37 percent) and/or convenience to shopping (32 percent) are important when choosing a place to live. Meanwhile, only one out of ten or less say good recreation facilities (10 percent), being in a senior community (8 percent), and/or being handicap accessible (7 percent) are important considerations. Only a small fraction care about being close to childcare (1 percent).
Safe neighborhood 70%
Affordability 56%
A rac ve neighborhood 37%
Convenient to shopping 32%
Close to work 28%
Access to public transporta on 24%
Lower taxes 22%
Family nearby 21%
Good quality schools 19%
Good recrea on facili es 10%
In senior community 8%
Handicap accessible 7%
Close to childcare 1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 75. (Q11) Most Important Considerations When Choosing a Place to Live (top mentions) (n=720) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 81
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Housing Choice (con’t) Safety is especially important to those with children (82 percent vs. 68 percent of those without children). This segment of the market is also more likely to report that being close to work is one of the most important considerations when choosing a place to live (45 percent vs. 25 percent), as is having good quality schools (52 percent vs. 12 percent) (Table 32). Residents with no children are more focused on affordability (58 percent vs. 48 percent), and/or being convenient to shopping (33 percent vs. 21 percent). Table 32. (Q11) Most Important Considerations When Choosing a Place to Live, by subgroups
Not No Any TOTAL City City 18-34 35-54 55-74 75+ Children Children Own Rent
(720) (442) (278) (17)* (163) (381) ( 149) (587) (119) (581) ( 120) n= % % % % % % % % % % % Safe neighborhood 70 72 67 82 72 69 72 68 82 71 67
Affordability 56 55 58 47 54 57 56 58 48 52 70 Attractive neighborhood 37 39 35 24 31 38 43 39 30 41 22 Convenient to shopping 32 35 26 24 21 34 40 33 21 29 44
Close to work 28 33 21 65 52 23 10 25 45 28 28 Access to public transportation 24 28 17 35 19 23 30 25 18 21 38
Lower taxes 22 18 29 0 21 24 21 23 15 26 6
Family nearby 21 13 33 18 14 20 30 22 15 20 22
Good quality schools 19 19 18 41 32 13 15 12 52 20 13 Good recreation facilities 10 10 9 29 9 10 8 9 15 11 3 In senior community 8 7 10 0 1 8 18 9 1 6 14 Handicap accessible 7 6 9 0 3 6 15 8 2 6 12
Close to childcare 1 <1 1 12 1 <1 0 <1 2 <1 1 *Caution: Small base Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 82
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Housing Choice (con’t)
City residents are slightly more focused on convenient shopping (35 percent vs. 26 percent), being close to work (33 percent vs. 21 percent), and/or access to public transportation (28 percent vs. 17 percent), while those living in other parts of the county care more about lower taxes (29 percent vs. 18 percent) and/or being near family (33 percent vs. 13 percent). Homeowners are more likely than renters to want an attractive neighborhood (41 percent vs. 22 percent) and/or lower taxes (26 percent vs. 6 percent) (Figure 76). Renters, on the other hand, are more focused on affordability (70 percent vs. 52 percent), being convenient to shopping (44 percent vs. 29 percent), and/or access to public transportation (38 percent vs. 21 percent).
n Affordable housing 78% 21% 2%
Housing for homeless 74% 23% 3% (656)
Senior rental housing 64% 34% 2% (621)
(639) Accessible housing persons w/disabili es 61% 39% 1%
(608) Family rental housing 58% 40% 2%
(637) Homeownership for seniors 47% 51% 2%
(615) Homeownership for families 40% 58% 2%
(632) Downtown housing 36% 57% 7%
(633) Student rental housing 8% 48% 44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% (636)
Too li le Right amount Too much
Figure 76. (Q12) Current Housing Availability in Tompkins County
Roughly three-fourths of those surveyed say there is not enough affordable housing (78 percent) and/or housing for the homeless (74 percent) in our community. About six (6) out of ten (10) believe there is a shortage of senior rental housing (64 percent), accessible housing for persons with disabilities (61 percent), and/or family rental housing (58 percent, especially among City Residents – 71 percent). The one type of housing reported as being more than ample by a sizable portion of Tompkins County residents overall is student rental housing (44 percent, especially among renters – 70 percent). Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 83
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Housing Choice (con’t)
About one-half of Tompkins County residents would like to see more rental assistance for homeless families/youth (55 percent), while a similar proportion think homebuyer assistance (48 percent) is most needed in the County (Figure 77). Roughly three out of ten think the county should have more weatherization grants (38 percent), emergency shelters (36 percent), security deposit assistance (29 percent, especially among renters – 63 percent), and/or accommodation assistance for the disabled (29 percent).
Rental assistance for homeless families/ 55% youth
Homebuyer assistance 48%
Weatheriza on grants 38%
Emergency shelters 36%
Security deposit assistance 29% è 63% Renters
Accommoda on assistance for disabled 29%
Immigrant services 9% è 16% City Residents
Lower taxes/tax relief* 4% è 7% Non-Ithaca/TC Residents
2-1-1 call center 3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
*Write-in response Figure 77. (Q13) Types of Housing Assistance Most Needed in Tompkins County (top mentions) (n=647) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 84
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Discrimination
Only a very small fraction of those surveyed report personally experiencing issues with housing access or stability in the past two years – 1 percent report possible housing discrimination (slightly higher among those living in the City – 5 percent) and/or eviction (higher for renters – 7 percent) (Figure 78).
Possible discrimina on 1%
Evic on 1%
Non-renewal of lease <1%
Foreclosure <1%
97% NONE OF THESE
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 78. (Q10a/b) Experienced in Past Two Years (n=720) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 85
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Discrimination (con’t)
Fewer than one out of ten (6 percent) residents overall say they themselves or others they know have experienced unlawful discrimination in Tompkins County while obtaining housing in the past five years (slightly higher for City residents – 12 percent and/or renters – 15 percent) (Figure 79). However, of those who experienced such discrimination, only a fraction (5 percent) have reported it (Figure 80).
Yes, 6%
No, 94%
Figure 79. (Q14a) Exposure to Housing Discrimination in Tompkins County in Past Five Years (n=721)
95% 100%
80%
60%
40%
20% 5% 0% Yes No
Figure 80. (Q14f) Alleged Discrimination Reported (n=721) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 86
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Discrimination (con’t)
Though reports of housing discrimination are relatively low in Tompkins County, one-half of those surveyed believe that housing discrimination is under-reported (50 percent), especially among City residents (65 percent) (Figure 81).
No, 50%
Yes, 50% è 65% City Residents
Figure 81. (Q16) Believe that Housing Discrimination is Under-Reported In Tompkins County
(n=579) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 87
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Discrimination (con’t)
Of those who reported having been exposed to discrimination, the leading reasons cited are the presence of children (32 percent; 57 percent among those with children), sex (25 percent; 48 percent among males), disability (24 percent), race or color (21 percent), sexual orientation (20 percent), and/or age (19 percent). However, given the small number having exposure to housing discrimination, each of these issues only represents a small fraction (1-2 percent) of residents overall. (Figure 82).
NOTE: The list of reasons presented to respondents included only protected categories — “Income/Section 8” and “Credit history” were included in the chart below because a number of people wrote those responses in the space provided.
For having children 32% è 57% Any Children
Sex 25% è 48% Males
Disability 24%
Race or color 21%
Sexual orienta on 20%
Age 19%
Income/Sec on 8* 9% è 45% Minorities
Na onal origin 7%
Religion/Creed 7%
Marital status 3%
Military status 3%
Credit history* 2%
Gender iden ty 2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
*Write-in responses Figure 82. (Q14b) Reasons for Alleged Discrimination (top mentions) (n=50) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 88
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Discrimination (con’t)
Having a Section 8 voucher (or other form of public assistance) is not a protected category, however nearly two out of ten (17 percent) Tompkins County residents say they or someone 100% they know has been denied housing for this when 80% specifically asked (Figure 83). About one out of twenty (4 percent) have been impacted in this way 60% by not speaking English well, which can be categorized as National Origin discrimination. 40% 17% 20% 4% 0% Having a Sec on 8 voucher/ Not speaking English well other form of public assistance (n=662) (n=641)
Figure 83. (Q15a/b) Denied Housing – Unprotected Categories (self or others) (n=721)
The highest level of perceived/alleged housing discrimination occurs in the City of Ithaca (74 percent among those exposed to discrimination, or roughly 4 City of Ithaca 74% percent overall). No housing discrimination was reported as happening anywhere outside of Ithaca (Figure 84).
Town of Ithaca 23%
Don't know 3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 84. (Q14g) Where Perceived/Alleged Discrimination Took Place (n=41) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 89
4 FH Profile “SURVEY A” — Quantitative Discrimination (con’t)
Landlords (90 percent of those exposed to discrimination, or Landlord 90% roughly 5 percent overall) and/or property managers (69 Property manager 69% percent, or roughly 4 percent overall) are perceived/alleged Bank/Mortgage lender 8% to be the leading perpetrators of housing discrimination Real estate agent 6% (Figure 85).
Public/Non-profit housing staff 6%
Local homeowners/neighborhood* 3%
Government staff 3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
*Write-in response Figure 85. (Q14c) Who Allegedly Engaged in Discrimination (top mentions) (n=50)
Housing discrimination is more likely to occur with individual housing Individual housing unit 46% units and/or multi-family housing Mul -family housing (1-4 units) 46% with 1-4 units (46 percent, or roughly 3 percent overall for both Mul -family housing (5+ units) 28% types of housing) (Figure 86).
Single family housing unit for sale 11%
Real estate office 10%
Public housing authority 7%
Lending ins tu on 6%
Condominium for sale 3%
City/County office <1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 86. (Q14d) Place(s) Where Alleged Discrimination Occurred (top mentions) (n=50) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 90
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Discrimination (con’t)
When asked what the discrimination looked like, one of the more common responses is a false statement of housing no longer being available (49 percent, or roughly 3 percent overall), followed by offering different terms than advertised (39 percent, or roughly 2 percent overall). (Figure 87).
Falsely stated housing was no longer 49% available
Offered different terms than adver sed 39%
Directed a person to certain 26% neighborhoods Refused to deal with a person in a 20% protected group
Discriminatory ad/placard/no ce 18%
Refusal to accommodate persons with 5% disabili es
Never returned phone calls/No response* 3%
Denied loan (not specific)* 3%
Denied loan based on a protected 2% category
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% *Write-in responses Figure 87. (Q14e)
Nature of Alleged Discrimination (top mentions) (n=49) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 91
“SURVEY A” — Quantitative 4 FH Profile Discrimination (con’t)
Nearly one-half of these Tompkins County residents rate themselves as having “very little” (41 percent) or “no” (8 percent) knowledge about housing discrimination prior to participating in this survey on the topic (Figure 88). Four out of ten (40 percent) say they had “moderate” knowledge, while only one out of ten (11 percent) had “a lot” of prior knowledge about housing discrimination.
Very li le, 41% None, 8%
A lot, 11%
Moderate, 40%
Figure 88. (Q14a) Prior Knowledge About Housing Discrimination (n=686)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 92
FH Profile “SURVEY B” — Anecdotal 4 Methodology
The Tompkins County Office of Human Rights (OHR) simultaneously conducted a qualitative fair housing choice survey. It was administered for the purpose of gathering anecdotal data from historically disenfranchised and difficult-to-reach populations in the City of Ithaca. It was conducted in the following manner:
• The survey was conducted at various sites throughout the City of Ithaca where protected classes of residents could likely be found.
• The survey period lasted from June 1, 2014 to July 31, 2014.
• Data was collected using a truncated version of the SURVEY LOCATIONS quantitative survey, using paper surveys and collected in drop boxes. Tompkins County Public Library • Residents were asked to share personal stories Loaves and Fishes Free Meal Program involving what they considered to be housing discrimination. Rescue Mission Alternatives Federal Credit Union • In some instances, OHR staff were on-site to assist residents in filling out the survey. Tompkins County Department of Health • In total, 116 Tompkins County residents completed the Tompkins County Office of the Aging survey.
Tompkins Community Action Cornell Cooperative Extension Women’s Opportunity Center Ithaca Free Clinic
Rescue Mission, State Street Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 93
4 FH Profile “SURVEY B” — Anecdotal Sample Demographics
Table 33. Demographic Profile of Survey Sample Total # % Residence (Q1) City of Ithaca 52 46.3 Town of Ithaca 24 21.43 Other Tompkins County 36 32.27 Gender (Q12) Male 33 29.46 Female 79 70.54 Age (Q13) 18-24 8 7.27 25-34 24 21.82 35-54 48 43.63 55-74 27 24.54 75+ 3 2.73 Children (Q11) None 61 55.96 Any 48 44.04 Income (Q17) $20,000 or less 59 59.19 $20,001 - $40,000 23 21.90 $40,001 - $60,000 14 13.33 $60,001 - $80,000 2 1.90 More than $80,001 7 6.67 Race (Q15)
White 83 75.45 African American 18 16.36 American Indian or Alaskan Native 9 8.18 Asian, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 4 3.64 Other 8 7.27
Fair Housing Choice
Analysis of Impediments to
City of Ithaca • New York 94
4 FH Profile “ SURVEY B” — Anecdotal Sample Demographics (con’t)
80% 75%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 16% 8% 7% 10% 4% 5%
0% White African American American Indian or Asian, Na ve Hispanic Other Alaskan Na ve Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander
Figure 89. Profile of Survey Sample by Race/Ethnicity
50% 44%
40%
30% 25% 22% 20% 7% 10% 3% 0% 18-24 25-34 35-54 55-74 75+
Figure 90. Age Profile of Survey Sample
70% 59% 60% 50% 40% 30% 22% 20% 13% 10% 2% 5% 0% $20,000 or $20,001 - $40,001 - $60,001 - More than less $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $80,001
Figure 91. Income Profile of Survey Sample
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 95
FH Profile “SURVEY B” — Anecdotal Discrimination 4
Thirty-eight respondents (33.93 percent) reported that they or someone they know had experienced unlawful discrimination in Tompkins County while obtaining housing in the last five years. Sixty-four percent (64%) of those respondents reported that the discrimination took place in the City of Ithaca. Eight (8) of those respondents said that they reported the discrimination.
Sexual Orienta on
Race, Color
For Having Children
Disability
Age
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 92. Bases of Discrimination Stories
Not Residents were asked if they or Speaking anyone they’ve known had been English Well denied housing due to source of 10 Source of Income income or ability to speak English:
Fair Housing Choice
Not Speaking English Source of Well Income 48
Figure 93. Source of Income and LEP (Q9a and Q9b) Analysis of Impediments to
City of Ithaca • New York 96 CHAPTER Direct Impediments to Fair Housing Choice OHR’s analysis of Ithaca’s demographic and economic conditions, 5 municipal documents, and information provided through public
Impediments participation indicates the City of Ithaca faces nine (9) primary impediments to fair housing choice. Each impediment shares equal weight and is not listed in any particular order.
People with disabilities report higher levels of discrimination and lower levels of housing accommodation than other 1 residents. 2 The needs of Limited The obligation of sub-recipients of City English Proficient (LEP) CDBG/HOME funds to Affirmatively Further individuals may be Fair Housing (AFFH) is not effectively underserved by the City communicated. 3 of Ithaca and by its sub-recipients of federal funding. Exclusionary tactics against households who rely on public and private subsidies for housing is prevalent in the City and has a disparate 4impact on protected classes in Ithaca. IMPEDIMENT 5 Some housing professionals’ Processes related to the construction policies, practices, and lack of
of housing within the City may limit knowledge limit housing options housing choice and inhibit the for protected classes. development of affordable housing
IMPEDIMENT within the City. 6
The City of Ithaca does not provide its residents No. 5 There is an inadequate supply of with any effective legal 7 emergency shelter and transitional mechanism by which their
No. 2 housing services, especially for fair housing rights are
homeless families with children and
No. 1 meaningfully enforced.
IMPEDIMENT 8 persons with disabilities.
IMPEDIMENT Ithaca’s student-dominated rental market leads to the IMPEDIMENT prevalence of discriminatory practices by local housing providers who screen out families with children (and other 9 protected groups) in favor of single students for housing. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 97 Direct Impediments Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice Impediments to
Fair Housing People with disabilities report higher levels of Choice are — discrimination and lower levels of housing
accommodation than other residents. • Any actions, omissions, or
decisions taken because of one’s IMPEDIMENT 1 membership in a protected class which restrict housing choices or Observations the availability of housing choices; • Between 2005 and 2014, the majority—43 percent—of fair housing and complaints filed in Tompkins County were based on Disability.
• Any actions, omissions, or • Approximately 61 percent of responders to “Survey A” expressed a decisions which have the effect of belief that the supply of accessible housing was not meeting current restricting housing choices or the demands. availability of housing choices on the basis of one’s membership in a • Fair housing testing found nearly 50 percent of Disability-related protected class. tests as having “Evidence” of discrimination, including outright rejection of applicants with service animals. This analysis makes a distinction between direct impediments • Approximately 87 percent of units in the City were built before 1980, (those that directly impact a prior to ADA and other accessibility mandates.
protected class) and indirect • All of Ithaca Housing Authority (IHA) elderly units were constructed impediments (those that may be a in the 1970s and early 1980s, prior to ADA and other accessibility concern but cannot be directly mandates. linked to any particular protected • City of Ithaca’s 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan, pp. 58-61, 78, 103. group). For example, the lack of affordable housing is generally a Impact on Protected Class(es) barrier for all low-income people, • People with disabilities are a protected class under fair housing law. regardless of protected class; To the extent that they cannot enjoy fair housing choices equal to therefore, in this AI the those of other residents of similar income levels, a fair housing barrier affordability of housing in Ithaca is is created.
viewed as an indirect impediment OHR Recommendations to fair housing choice. • Seek out every possible resource to create new and preserve the Furthermore, each identified existing supply of accessible housing. This includes encouraging impediment is supported by a surrounding Tompkins County communities to do the same. number of observations that when considered collectively, support • Conduct a public awareness campaign to promote fair housing laws the existence of the corresponding related to accessibility standards, assistance animals, and other barrier to fair housing choice. forms of reasonable accommodation/modification.
• Seek out sources of funding and fair housing partnerships in order to continue paired testing research so data may be collected for enforcement and outreach purposes.
• In the process of regulating and enforcing housing-related activity and development, the City should consider promoting universal design elements that serve people of all abilities.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 98 Direct Impediments Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice
The needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals may be underserved by the City of Ithaca and by its sub- IMPEDIMENT 2 recipients of federal funding. Observations • The City of Ithaca does not currently have a Language Assistance Plan, nor is the need for one mentioned in its 2013 LEP Plan. The obligation of sub-recipients of City
• The City’s LEP Plan and accompanying documents CDBG/HOME funds to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is not do not refer to the City’s obligation to provide effectively communicated by the City language interpretation and translation services to
IMPEDIMENT nor understood by its sub-recipients. LEP individuals free of charge. 3 • The City characterizes its LEP obligation as being applicable solely to the “Commons Repair and Observations Upgrade Project” for which the City received FTA • Based on feedback from focus group discussions and OHR funding in 2013. training sessions attended by representative of agencies
• The City does not appear to interpret its LEP receiving federal dollars from the City, it is apparent that obligations as applying to all City projects, services, these sub-recipients of CDBG/HOME funds have limited or programs. knowledge about their AFFH obligations and therefore have not developed strategies for meeting those obligations. Impact on Protected Class(es) • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “requires that • Although several City sub-recipients of CDBG/HOME funding federal-assistance recipients provide language are professional housing development agencies, many are assistance to individuals with limited English not — having small staffs and a primary mission that is not proficiency. Failure to ensure that persons who are necessarily housing focused.
LEP can effectively participate in or benefit from Impact on Protected Class(es) federally assisted programs violates Title VI's • Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act)
prohibition against National Origin discrimination. requires all recipients and sub-recipients of HUD funding to
OHR Recommendations administer its programs in a way that affirmatively furthers • The City should consider revisiting its LEP Plan for fair housing (AFFH), the failure of which creates barriers for the purpose of developing a viable LAP with the goal all protected classes.
of providing broader and more comprehensive OHR Recommendations language services to LEP individuals seeking to • The City should consider reviewing and updating its access any City service and/or program. CDBG/HOME award process to include (in addition to
• The City should consider surveying all its federally- contract language) clear notification processes and briefing assisted sub-recipients to inquire whether they are opportunities for CDBG/HOME awardees regarding their in compliance with LEP mandates, and if not, to obligation to AFFH, while assisting with strategies for encourage and direct them to be so. compliance.
• Conduct a public awareness campaign to help make • The City should consider publicizing its AFFH obligation as a LEP individuals aware of their eligibility to receive requirement to receiving HUD funds, as well as detailing its free interpretation and translation assistance in the AFFH measures and compliance-based activities on its course of accessing City programs. website.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 99 Direct Impediments Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice
Exclusionary tactics against households who rely on public and private subsidies for housing is prevalent in the City and has a disparate impact on protected classes in Ithaca. IMPEDIMENT 4
Observations • AI data show that 15 percent of Tompkins County residents have disabilities, but nearly 40 percent of HCV holders are documented persons with disabilities.
• African-Americans constitute only 6.5 percent of Ithaca’s population overall, but represent over 20 percent of HCV recipients.
• Female-headed households and Latinos are also over- represented in the pool of HCV users.
• Fair housing test results showed that 100 percent of HCV-holding testers were outright rejected, steered to other properties, or refused based on the HCV agency’s security deposit policy.
• Approximately 17 percent of “Survey A” responders said they had been denied housing in the past based on their source of income.
Impact on Protected Class(es) • Because protected individuals are generally overrepresented in pools of persons receiving public or private forms of assistance for housing, the right to exclude them from housing based on
that source of income has a disparate impact on protected groups.
• Discrimination based on “Source of Income” may not only pose an illegal disparate impact on protected class members; at times, it may also be a pretext for direct discriminatory treatment.
OHR Recommendations • The City should consider revising City Code §215 to include effective local enforcement mechanisms for discrimination complaints that arise from its jurisdiction.
• While revising City Code §215, the City should consider adding discrimination based on “Source of Income” as a protected category. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 100 Direct Impediments Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice
Some housing professionals’ policies, practices, and lack of knowledge limit housing options for protected classes.
IMPEDIMENT 5
Observations • In the City, renter-occupied housing makes up nearly 74 percent of all housing units, more than double the national average.
• Many landlords in Ithaca and Tompkins County are not large business entities. Instead, they are “mom and pop” shops, renting out a small number of units and not well educated on federal, state, or local laws regarding fair housing.
• Based on “Survey A” — (1) an overwhelming majority of responders (90 percent) perceived landlords to be leading perpetrators of housing discrimination; and (2) nearly one-half of Tompkins County residents rate themselves as having “very little” or “no” knowledge about fair housing.
• Over 19 percent of fair housing tests returned a showing of “Evidence” of discrimination, including some very direct examples of fair housing violations; e.g., rejecting and steering families with children and refusal to consider applicants with service animals.
Impact on Protected Class(es) • Discriminatory and unlawful housing practices limit fair housing choices for all protected groups.
OHR Recommendations • Conduct a public awareness campaign to promote fair housing laws and best
practices related to the rights and responsibilities of tenants, landlords, property managers, lenders, real estate agents, and human service providers.
• Provide and/or encourage fair housing training for smaller landlords, property managers, lenders, real estate agents, and human service providers.
• The City should consider publishing fair housing enforcement information on its website for the purpose of educating tenants and homebuyers about how to file a fair housing complaint and/or how to obtain fair housing counseling.
• As part of an annual code enforcement communiqué to all registered rental housing property owners, the City should consider sending fair housing information, in addition to routinely disbursing flyers and invitations to fair housing related trainings and workshops being provided in the community. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 101 Direct Impediments Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice
Processes related to the construction of housing within the City may limit housing choice and inhibit the development of affordable housing within the City.
IMPEDIMENT 6
Observations • The City’s zoning ordinance does not include any discussion about fair housing or related issues.
• As a best practice, communities with problems related to inadequate sources of affordable housing should regularly review and assess policies related to housing development and planning for the purpose of eliminating procedural barriers.
• The risk to housing developers is high as they navigate to meet the demands of local regulations. The time frame from inception to approval can be as long as 3-4 years, a period in which prices, needs, and risk may easily fluctuate.
• City of Ithaca’s 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan.
Impact on Protected Class(es) • Housing development and occupancy policies, if cumbersome or too restrictive, run the risk of limiting the number of affordable housing units most needed by protected classes.
OHR Recommendations • The City should consider including a discussion about fair housing in its zoning ordinance.
• Engage in bi-annual discussions of housing policies in order to update best practices for encouraging fair housing choice.
• Conduct focus group dialogues with stakeholders (private and non-profit), such as developers, community groups, and neighborhoods for feedback on development
processes. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 102 Direct Impediments Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice
The City of Ithaca does not There is an inadequate supply of provide its residents with any emergency shelter and transitional effective legal mechanism by housing services, especially for which their fair housing rights homeless families with children and are meaningfully enforced. persons with mental disabilities. IMPEDIMENT 7 IMPEDIMENT 8 Observations Observations • City of Ithaca’s local anti-discrimination law (City • In 2015, there was an increase in the number of all homeless Code §215) does not grant or identify specific persons for both the HUD PIT Count and the Community PIT enforcement powers or otherwise provide for any Count, reflecting the increased number of persons requiring meaningful mechanism by which complaints arising emergency shelters and transitional housing. within the City may be processed. • In 2015, the number of sheltered persons with severe • Tompkins County’s anti-discrimination law (Local mental health issues increased significantly. Law C) only protects victims of discrimination based • In 2015, there was an increase in the number of homeless on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender children, largely reflecting the increase in number of Expression. homeless families. • The nearest agency for an Ithaca resident to duly file • Presence of a student-dominated housing market in Ithaca. an administrative fair housing complaint is Binghamton (50 miles away) or Buffalo, New York • City of Ithaca housing providers’ widespread practice of (160 miles away). refusing tenants based on Source of Income.
• Based on “ Survey A“ over 65 percent of residents • Documented lack of affordable housing in the City of Ithaca.
perceived an under-reporting of housing Impact on Protected Class(es) discrimination by victims. • Emergency and transitional housing cannot be viewed as valid
• Over 19 percent of fair housing tests returned a housing choices for anyone; neither is homelessness caused showing of “Evidence” of discrimination, including by affordability or income issues alone. But when high cost some very direct examples of fair housing violations. burdens and exclusionary rental market indicators exist, the limited supply of emergency shelter and transitional housing Impact on Protected Class(es) creates temporary barriers for families with children and
• Discriminatory and unlawful housing practices persons with disabilities in Ithaca. substantially impact protected groups by limiting their fair housing choices. OHR Recommendations
OHR Recommendations • Address housing issues that marginalize the homeless by • In coordination with the County’s review of Local continuing to seek additional funding and assist in the Law C, the City should consider revising City Code provision of services for the homeless, including emergency §215 to include an effective local enforcement shelter space, transitional housing, and corresponding mechanism for discrimination complaints that arise supportive services, by directing grants to the agencies that within the City’s jurisdiction. provide these services.
• The City should consider limiting local protected • The City should consider efforts to (1) recruit landlords willing categories to those currently enforced by state and to work with those who are homeless to transition to stable federal law, while adding ”Source of Income” and housing; (2) provide a wider range of housing options for “Domestic Violence Victim Status” as local people with mental illness and substance abuse issues without protections. concentrating such populations; and (3) encourage scattered site housing with support services available.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 103 Direct Impediments Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice
Ithaca’s student-dominated rental market leads to the prevalence of discriminatory practices by local housing providers who screen out families with children (and other protected groups) in favor of single students for housing.
IMPEDIMENT 9
Observations • According to Ithaca Housing Authority (IHA) data, there were 215 households on the waiting list for public housing in May 2014. For IHA family sites, the waiting period is one to three years. For senior projects, the waiting list is three to six months.
• Between 2006 and 2014, fair market rents for three- and four-bedroom units grew 76 percent and 58 percent, respectively — showing the highest increase than for any other size unit.
• Between 2005 and 2014, over 17 percent of fair housing complaints arising in Tompkins County alleged Familial Status discrimination, making it the second most frequent basis.
• Fair housing testing results showed 50 percent of Familial Status tests as providing “Evidence” of discrimination. For example, testers with children were repeatedly told by rental agents the unit they were inquiring about was only available to students.
• Based on “Survey A” responses, the only type of housing reported as being “more than ample” by a sizable portion of Tompkins County residents (44 percent) is student rental housing.
Impact on Protected Class(es)
• Discrimination based on Familial Status is a violation of federal and state fair housing laws and its practice negatively impacts housing choice for families with children.
OHR Recommendations • Conduct a public awareness campaign to promote fair housing laws related to Familial Status protections.
• Continue to promote the construction and preservation of affordable housing opportunities for families within the City.
• Continue to engage with local educational institutions as to how student housing needs negatively impact families with children and other protected groups within the City. For example, consider developing an MOU with local colleges and Universities that (1) restricts enrolled students to living in on-campus housing for at least two years; (2) encourages the building of additional on-campus housing for student populations; and (3) explores the viability of intergenerational housing projects that meet the needs of students, families, seniors, and disabled populations.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 104 12
Indirect Direct ImpedimentsImpediment Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice
The City’s high rental and homeownership prices, as well as limited land and public resources, have a disparate impact on Ithaca residents in protected classes who have low incomes by limiting their housing options. INDIRECT IMPEDIMENT 1
Observations protected group status, such that these protected groups • Based on AI data, the fair market rents on City units with make up a disproportionate part of the City’s low-income between one and four bedrooms have increased by more population, the limited supply of affordable units has the than 50 percent. effect of restricting housing choice for those protected residents. • ACS data show that a majority of Ithaca/Tompkins County renters exceed what is considered affordable in terms of OHR Recommendations percentage of income spent on housing. For example, • Advocate regionally for a wide range of housing policies approximately 69 percent of renters pay more than 30 that promote housing development benefiting protected percent of their income in rent. groups, including encouraging more housing developments outside the City’s jurisdiction. • Based on “Survey A,” roughly three-fourths of those surveyed say there is not enough affordable housing (78 • Continue to advocate for increased public resources for percent) in Tompkins County. In addition, more than 56 housing development and operations from HUD and other percent said that affordability was the most important state and federal agencies. consideration when choosing a place to live. • Explore every possible resource to create new and • For IHA family sites, the waiting period is one to three preserve existing supplies of affordable housing. years. • Continue to engage with local educational institutions as • According to AI data, affordable housing in the City — to how student housing needs negatively impact families close to jobs, shopping, and services — is nearly with children and other protected groups within the City. impossible for renters using HCVs to secure. For example, consider developing an MOU with local colleges and Universities that (1) restricts enrolled • According to the 2014 Housing Survey Report conducted students to living in on-campus housing for at least two by the County’s Office for the Aging (COFA), many older years; (2) encourages the building of additional on-campus adults have a desire to “age in place” — ideally living housing for student populations; and (3) explores the within the City or Town of Ithaca in housing that is viability of intergenerational housing projects that meet affordable, accessible, on a single floor, and with easy the needs of students, families, seniors, and disabled access to public transportation and services. However, populations. the City’s current housing stock is not affordable for seniors because it, in many cases, requires expensive • The relationship between the City, County, and other local retrofitting in order to make it accessible for older adults municipalities needs to be strengthened in order to better as they age. address the housing affordability concerns of its residents. For example, the City should consider creating a • The COFA Survey Report also documents the fact that coordinated Housing Task Force that represents both the local residents are often resistant to new development City and County. due to their discomfort with the concept of density in housing. • In order to address problems related to affordability, accessibility, and the inability to age in place, Ithaca Indirect Impact on Protected Class(es) residents need to become more comfortable with the • Affordability is not, in itself, a fair housing barrier, concept of density in housing in order for development to because income is not a protected class. However, due occur. to the strong correlation between income and having Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 105 Direct Impediments Impediments 5 to Fair Housing Choice
Blank Page
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 106 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Index of Appendice A Appendice
Appendix I: Survey A/Survey B Instruments ...... 108
IMPEDIMENT
IMPEDIMENT
No. 5
No. 2
No. 1
IMPEDIMENT IMPEDIMENT IMPEDIMENT Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 107 Direct Impediments APPENDICE Survey A/Survey B Instrument, p.1 A to Fair Housing Choice
d. What best describes the places where the discrimination occurred? (select all that apply)
Multi-family housing (1-4 units) Single family housing unit for sale Lending institution Other ______1 4 7 95 Multi-family housing (5+ units) Condominium for sale Public housing authority 2 5 8 3 Individual housing unit 6 Real estate office 9 City/county office TOMPKINS COUNTY Office of Human Rights e. What did the discrimination look like? (select all that apply) 120 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. / W. STATE STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 Falsely stated housing was no longer available Refused to deal with a person in a protected group 1 5 INCLUSION THROUGH DIVERSITY Tel: 607.277.4080 Fax: 607.277.4106 2 Directed a person to certain neighborhoods 6 Offered different terms than advertised 3 Discriminatory ad/placard/notice 7 Denied loan based on a protected category 4 Refusal to accommodate persons with disabilities 95 Other 17 June 2014
f. Was this discrimination reported to any local, state or federal agency? 1 Yes 2 No Dear City of Ithaca/Tompkins County Resident, g. In which town/village/city did the discrimination take place?
1 City of Ithaca 5 T/Danby 9 T/Enfield 13 V/Lansing 99 Don't know Congratulations on being randomly selected to participate in this Fair Housing Choice Survey jointly sponsored by the City 2 T/Ithaca 6 T/Dryden 10 T/Groton 14 T/Newfield of Ithaca and Tompkins County. The purpose of this community survey is to gather data and collect opinions on the status 3 T/Caroline 7 V/Dryden 11 V/Groton 15 T/Ulysses of fair housing choice in the region. Fair housing choice is rooted in the right to live where one wants to live without being 4 V/Cayuga Hgts 8 V/Freeville 12 T/Lansing 16 V/Trumansburg hindered by discrimination — because neighborhood conditions play a significant role in the life outcomes of our residents.
15. Although it is not currently a protected category, have you or anyone you've known been denied housing because of the following: This survey is being conducted by the Tompkins County Office of Human Rights (OHR) and the Ithaca Urban Renewal a. Having a section 8 voucher or other form of public assistance? 1 Yes 2 No Agency (IURA) in order to determine what kinds of barriers to fair housing choice currently exist within the City and County. b. Not speaking English very well? 1 Yes 2 No Even if you have never had issues or problems finding or keeping the type of housing you desire, it is very important that you participate so that we have a complete and accurate picture of these issues as they relate to our entire community. 16. Do you think that housing discrimination is under-reported In Tompkins County? 1 Yes 2 No
17. Before taking this survey, how much knowledge did you have about housing discrimination? The survey should only take about 5-10 minutes to complete, and all responses will remain confidential (your name will not
0 None 1 Very little 2 Moderate 3 A lot be connected with your answers). A prepaid return envelope has been included for your convenience. Please return the completed survey no later than July 31st. If you prefer to do the survey online, please go to: Part 4: You and Your Household
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/fairhousingchoicesurvey 18. Including you, how many people are in your household (counting everyone who lives with you, not just family)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ We are counting on your help and greatly appreciate your assistance in completing this survey. Your full participation will
19. How many of these total household members are under the age of 18? help the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County build a strategy for eliminating barriers to fair housing choice and make other important decisions related to housing. None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+
20. What is your gender? 1 Female 2 Male 99 Other identity We look forward to hearing what you have to say.
21. What is your age?
1 Under 18 2 18-24 3 25-34 4 35-44 5 45-54 6 55-64 7 65-74 8 75-84 9 85+
22. Are you Hispanic or Latino? 1 Yes 2 No
23. What is your race? (check all that apply)
1 White 3 American Indian or Alaskan native 95 Other race ______ 2 Black/African-American 4 Asian, native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander
24. a. Is a language other than English regularly spoken in your household? 1 Yes 2 No (skip to Q25) b. If yes, which language? c. How many persons in your household over the age of 18 do not speak English very well? 1 2 3 4+
25. Which category best describes your total annual household income counting all working members?
1 Less than $20,000 3 $40,001 - $60,000 5 $80,001 - $100,000 2 $20,001 - $40,000 4 $60,001 - $80,000 6 $100,001 or more
Thank you very much for your help with this important study! Please return your completed survey to WBA Research in the enclosed prepaid envelope no later than July 31 (171 E. State St. MB 123 Suite 216 Ithaca, NY 14850) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 108 Direct Impediments Appendice A to Fair Housing Choice Survey A/Survey B Instrument, p.2 Part 1: Current Housing 10. a. Have you experienced any of the following in the past two years? (select all that apply) 1. In which town/village/city do you live? (if you regularly move around, select your primary current location) 1 Eviction 2 Foreclosure 3 Non-renewal of lease 4 Possible discrimination 97 No, none of these (skip to Q11) 1 City of Ithaca 5 T/Danby 9 T/Enfield 13 V/Lansing 2 T/Ithaca 6 T/Dryden 10 T/Groton 14 T/Newfield b. If eviction, based on what? (select all that apply) T/Caroline V/Dryden V/Groton T/Ulysses 3 7 11 15 Non-payment of rent Possible discrimination Lease violation Other ______ V/Cayuga Hgts V/Freeville T/Lansing V/Trumansburg 1 2 3 95 4 8 12 16
2. In which elementary school district do you live? c. If foreclosure, based on what? (select all that apply) 1 Late payments 3 Bank sold home through short sale 95 Other ______ 1 BJM 4 Cayuga Heights 7 Fall Creek 10 Newfield 13 Trumansburg 2 Apartment building was foreclosed and forced to move 2 Belle Sherman 5 Dryden 8 Groton 11 Northeast 99 Don't know
3 Caroline 6 Enfield 9 Lansing 12 South Hill Part 2: Future Housing Needs (please answer these questions even if you are not planning to change your housing situation) 3. a. If additional affordable housing opportunities were available throughout Tompkins County, would you consider moving 11. Select your most important considerations when choosing a place to live: (select up to 3) to take advantage of those opportunities? 1 Yes 2 No (skip to Q4)
1 Family nearby 5 Safe neighborhood 9 Affordability 13 Lower taxes b. If yes, where would you want to live? (select one) 2 Convenient to shopping 6 Good recreation facilities 10 Attractive neighborhood 95 Other ______
1 City of Ithaca 5 T/Danby 9 T/Enfield 13 V/Lansing 99 Don't know 3 Close to childcare 7 Close to work 11 In senior community 2 T/Ithaca 6 T/Dryden 10 T/Groton 14 T/Newfield 4 Good quality schools 8 Access to public transportation 12 Handicap accessible
3 V/Caroline 7 V/Dryden 11 V/Groton 15 T/Ulysses 12. Please rate each type of housing situation below in terms of its current availability in Tompkins County. Rate them all based on 4 T/Cayuga Hgts 8 V/Freeville 12 T/Lansing 16 V/Trumansburg anything you may know or based on your own perceptions, even if you are not currently looking for that type of housing. 4. What is your current housing situation? (select one) CURRENT AVAILABILITY IN TOMPKINS COUNTY TYPE OF HOUSING 1 Own 2 Rent 3 Live with 4 Homeless 95 Other Too little Right amount Too much friends/family (a) Family rental housing 1 2 3 (skip to Q6) (continue to Q5) (skip to Q7) (b) Student rental housing 1 2 3 (c) Senior rental housing 1 2 3 5. If you are a renter, are you interested in purchasing a home within the next five years? 1 Yes 2 No (d) Homeownership for families 1 2 3
(e) Homeownership for seniors 1 2 3 6. If you own your home, are you interested in any of the following options in the next five years? (select all that apply) (f) Housing for homeless 1 2 3 1 Moving to smaller home 3 Selling home and renting 97 No, none of these (g) Accessible housing for persons with disabilities 1 2 3 2 Moving to larger home 4 Moving into the City (if not already living there) (h) Affordable housing 1 2 3
(i) Downtown housing 1 2 3 7. Other than the cost, what other issues might prevent you from moving to the kind of housing you would rather have? (select all that apply) 13. In your opinion, what types of housing assistance programs are most needed in Tompkins County? (select up to 3) Credit problems Access to services Other (NOT cost-related issues) ______1 3 95 1 Emergency shelters 4 Security deposit assistance 7 Homebuyer assistance Lack of transportation Fear of discrimination 2 4 2 Immigrant services 5 2-1-1 call center 8 Weatherization grants Rental assistance for homeless families/youth Accommodation assistance for disabled Other ______8. a. Do you live in public or subsidized housing or receive some sort of government assistance to pay your rent? 3 6 95
1 Yes 2 No (skip to Q9) Part 3: Discrimination (please answer these questions even if you feel you have not been affected by discrimination)
b. If yes, what type? 1 Public housing 2 Section 8 95 Other subsidized housing ______Discrimination is the illegal practice of denying a person or household the right to buy or rent a home based on a protected category. 9. Please rate your overall satisfaction with your current housing situation: Protected category means a group of people, defined by a characteristic or other factor, who cannot be discriminated against based on Extremely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely satisfied these characteristics under Federal, NYS, and local Fair Housing Laws (for example: race, color, religion, disability, having children, military status, age, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, and gender identity). 10. Please tell us how well the following characteristics describe your current housing situation. Circle one number for each item below: Does NOT describe Describes perfectly 14. a. Have you or anyone you've known experienced unlawful discrimination in Tompkins County while obtaining housing in the past five years? (a) Integrated neighborhood (different races, etc. live there) 1 2 3 4 5 (b) Accessible to persons with disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 Yes 2 No (skip to Q15) (c) Close to work/work options 1 2 3 4 5 b. If yes, considering all the situations you’re thinking about (if more than one), which of the following were the reasons for the (d) Good access to public transportation 1 2 3 4 5 discrimination? (select all that apply) (e) Affordable 1 2 3 4 5 1 Race or color 4 For having children 7 Sex 10 Sexual orientation (f) Enough living space 1 2 3 4 5 2 Religion/Creed 5 Military status 8 National origin 11 Gender identity (g) Close to shopping/restaurants 1 2 3 4 5 3 Disability 6 Age 9 Marital status 95 Other______(h) Quality housing options available 1 2 3 4 5 (i) Plenty of services for seniors 1 2 3 4 5 c. Who do you believe engaged in the discrimination? (select all that apply) (j) Good for families 1 2 3 4 5 1 Landlord 3 Real estate agent 5 Government staff 95 Other ______
(k) Enough parking 1 2 3 4 5 2 Property manager 4 Bank/mortgage lender 6 Public/non-profit housing staff (l) Good quality of life 1 2 3 4 5 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 109 Direct Impediments APPENDICE A to Fair Housing Choice Survey A/Survey B Instrument, p. 3 Part 1: Current Housing 10. a. Have you experienced any of the following in the past two years? (select all that apply) 1. In which town/village/city do you live? (if you regularly move around, select your primary current location) 1 Eviction 2 Foreclosure 3 Non-renewal of lease 4 Possible discrimination 97 No, none of these (skip to Q11) 1 City of Ithaca 5 T/Danby 9 T/Enfield 13 V/Lansing 2 T/Ithaca 6 T/Dryden 10 T/Groton 14 T/Newfield b. If eviction, based on what? (select all that apply) T/Caroline V/Dryden V/Groton T/Ulysses 3 7 11 15 Non-payment of rent Possible discrimination Lease violation Other ______ V/Cayuga Hgts V/Freeville T/Lansing V/Trumansburg 1 2 3 95 4 8 12 16
2. In which elementary school district do you live? c. If foreclosure, based on what? (select all that apply) 1 Late payments 3 Bank sold home through short sale 95 Other ______ 1 BJM 4 Cayuga Heights 7 Fall Creek 10 Newfield 13 Trumansburg 2 Apartment building was foreclosed and forced to move 2 Belle Sherman 5 Dryden 8 Groton 11 Northeast 99 Don't know
3 Caroline 6 Enfield 9 Lansing 12 South Hill Part 2: Future Housing Needs (please answer these questions even if you are not planning to change your housing situation) 3. a. If additional affordable housing opportunities were available throughout Tompkins County, would you consider moving 11. Select your most important considerations when choosing a place to live: (select up to 3) to take advantage of those opportunities? 1 Yes 2 No (skip to Q4)
1 Family nearby 5 Safe neighborhood 9 Affordability 13 Lower taxes b. If yes, where would you want to live? (select one) 2 Convenient to shopping 6 Good recreation facilities 10 Attractive neighborhood 95 Other ______
1 City of Ithaca 5 T/Danby 9 T/Enfield 13 V/Lansing 99 Don't know 3 Close to childcare 7 Close to work 11 In senior community 2 T/Ithaca 6 T/Dryden 10 T/Groton 14 T/Newfield 4 Good quality schools 8 Access to public transportation 12 Handicap accessible
3 V/Caroline 7 V/Dryden 11 V/Groton 15 T/Ulysses 12. Please rate each type of housing situation below in terms of its current availability in Tompkins County. Rate them all based on 4 T/Cayuga Hgts 8 V/Freeville 12 T/Lansing 16 V/Trumansburg anything you may know or based on your own perceptions, even if you are not currently looking for that type of housing. 4. What is your current housing situation? (select one) CURRENT AVAILABILITY IN TOMPKINS COUNTY TYPE OF HOUSING 1 Own 2 Rent 3 Live with 4 Homeless 95 Other Too little Right amount Too much friends/family (a) Family rental housing 1 2 3 (skip to Q6) (continue to Q5) (skip to Q7) (b) Student rental housing 1 2 3 (c) Senior rental housing 1 2 3 5. If you are a renter, are you interested in purchasing a home within the next five years? 1 Yes 2 No (d) Homeownership for families 1 2 3
(e) Homeownership for seniors 1 2 3 6. If you own your home, are you interested in any of the following options in the next five years? (select all that apply) (f) Housing for homeless 1 2 3 1 Moving to smaller home 3 Selling home and renting 97 No, none of these (g) Accessible housing for persons with disabilities 1 2 3 2 Moving to larger home 4 Moving into the City (if not already living there) (h) Affordable housing 1 2 3
(i) Downtown housing 1 2 3 7. Other than the cost, what other issues might prevent you from moving to the kind of housing you would rather have? (select all that apply) 13. In your opinion, what types of housing assistance programs are most needed in Tompkins County? (select up to 3) Credit problems Access to services Other (NOT cost-related issues) ______1 3 95 1 Emergency shelters 4 Security deposit assistance 7 Homebuyer assistance Lack of transportation Fear of discrimination 2 4 2 Immigrant services 5 2-1-1 call center 8 Weatherization grants Rental assistance for homeless families/youth Accommodation assistance for disabled Other ______8. a. Do you live in public or subsidized housing or receive some sort of government assistance to pay your rent? 3 6 95
1 Yes 2 No (skip to Q9) Part 3: Discrimination (please answer these questions even if you feel you have not been affected by discrimination)
b. If yes, what type? 1 Public housing 2 Section 8 95 Other subsidized housing ______Discrimination is the illegal practice of denying a person or household the right to buy or rent a home based on a protected category. 9. Please rate your overall satisfaction with your current housing situation: Protected category means a group of people, defined by a characteristic or other factor, who cannot be discriminated against based on Extremely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely satisfied these characteristics under Federal, NYS, and local Fair Housing Laws (for example: race, color, religion, disability, having children, military status, age, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, and gender identity). 10. Please tell us how well the following characteristics describe your current housing situation. Circle one number for each item below: Does NOT describe Describes perfectly 14. a. Have you or anyone you've known experienced unlawful discrimination in Tompkins County while obtaining housing in the past five years? (a) Integrated neighborhood (different races, etc. live there) 1 2 3 4 5 (b) Accessible to persons with disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 Yes 2 No (skip to Q15) (c) Close to work/work options 1 2 3 4 5 b. If yes, considering all the situations you’re thinking about (if more than one), which of the following were the reasons for the (d) Good access to public transportation 1 2 3 4 5 discrimination? (select all that apply) (e) Affordable 1 2 3 4 5 1 Race or color 4 For having children 7 Sex 10 Sexual orientation (f) Enough living space 1 2 3 4 5 2 Religion/Creed 5 Military status 8 National origin 11 Gender identity (g) Close to shopping/restaurants 1 2 3 4 5 3 Disability 6 Age 9 Marital status 95 Other______(h) Quality housing options available 1 2 3 4 5 (i) Plenty of services for seniors 1 2 3 4 5 c. Who do you believe engaged in the discrimination? (select all that apply) (j) Good for families 1 2 3 4 5 1 Landlord 3 Real estate agent 5 Government staff 95 Other ______
(k) Enough parking 1 2 3 4 5 2 Property manager 4 Bank/mortgage lender 6 Public/non-profit housing staff (l) Good quality of life 1 2 3 4 5 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 110 Direct Impediments Appendice A to Fair Housing Choice Survey A/Survey B Instrument, p. 4 d. What best describes the places where the discrimination occurred? (select all that apply)
Multi-family housing (1-4 units) Single family housing unit for sale Lending institution Other ______1 4 7 95 Multi-family housing (5+ units) Condominium for sale Public housing authority 2 5 8 3 Individual housing unit 6 Real estate office 9 City/county office TOMPKINS COUNTY Office of Human Rights
e. What did the discrimination look like? (select all that apply) 120 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. / W. STATE STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 Falsely stated housing was no longer available Refused to deal with a person in a protected group 1 5 INCLUSION THROUGH DIVERSITY Tel: 607.277.4080 Fax: 607.277.4106 2 Directed a person to certain neighborhoods 6 Offered different terms than advertised 3 Discriminatory ad/placard/notice 7 Denied loan based on a protected category 4 Refusal to accommodate persons with disabilities 95 Other 17 June 2014
f. Was this discrimination reported to any local, state or federal agency? 1 Yes 2 No Dear City of Ithaca/Tompkins County Resident, g. In which town/village/city did the discrimination take place?
1 City of Ithaca 5 T/Danby 9 T/Enfield 13 V/Lansing 99 Don't know Congratulations on being randomly selected to participate in this Fair Housing Choice Survey jointly sponsored by the City 2 T/Ithaca 6 T/Dryden 10 T/Groton 14 T/Newfield of Ithaca and Tompkins County. The purpose of this community survey is to gather data and collect opinions on the status 3 T/Caroline 7 V/Dryden 11 V/Groton 15 T/Ulysses of fair housing choice in the region. Fair housing choice is rooted in the right to live where one wants to live without being 4 V/Cayuga Hgts 8 V/Freeville 12 T/Lansing 16 V/Trumansburg hindered by discrimination — because neighborhood conditions play a significant role in the life outcomes of our residents.
15. Although it is not currently a protected category, have you or anyone you've known been denied housing because of the following: This survey is being conducted by the Tompkins County Office of Human Rights (OHR) and the Ithaca Urban Renewal a. Having a section 8 voucher or other form of public assistance? 1 Yes 2 No Agency (IURA) in order to determine what kinds of barriers to fair housing choice currently exist within the City and County. b. Not speaking English very well? 1 Yes 2 No Even if you have never had issues or problems finding or keeping the type of housing you desire, it is very important that you participate so that we have a complete and accurate picture of these issues as they relate to our entire community. 16. Do you think that housing discrimination is under-reported In Tompkins County? 1 Yes 2 No
17. Before taking this survey, how much knowledge did you have about housing discrimination? The survey should only take about 5-10 minutes to complete, and all responses will remain confidential (your name will not
0 None 1 Very little 2 Moderate 3 A lot be connected with your answers). A prepaid return envelope has been included for your convenience. Please return the completed survey no later than July 31st. If you prefer to do the survey online, please go to: Part 4: You and Your Household
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/fairhousingchoicesurvey 18. Including you, how many people are in your household (counting everyone who lives with you, not just family)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ We are counting on your help and greatly appreciate your assistance in completing this survey. Your full participation will
19. How many of these total household members are under the age of 18? help the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County build a strategy for eliminating barriers to fair housing choice and make other important decisions related to housing. None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+
20. What is your gender? 1 Female 2 Male 99 Other identity We look forward to hearing what you have to say.
21. What is your age?
1 Under 18 2 18-24 3 25-34 4 35-44 5 45-54 6 55-64 7 65-74 8 75-84 9 85+
22. Are you Hispanic or Latino? 1 Yes 2 No
23. What is your race? (check all that apply)
1 White 3 American Indian or Alaskan native 95 Other race ______ 2 Black/African-American 4 Asian, native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander
24. a. Is a language other than English regularly spoken in your household? 1 Yes 2 No (skip to Q25)
b. If yes, which language?
c. How many persons in your household over the age of 18 do not speak English very well? 1 2 3 4+
25. Which category best describes your total annual household income counting all working members?
1 Less than $20,000 3 $40,001 - $60,000 5 $80,001 - $100,000 2 $20,001 - $40,000 4 $60,001 - $80,000 6 $100,001 or more
Thank you very much for your help with this important study! Please return your completed survey to WBA Research in the enclosed prepaid envelope no later than July 31 (171 E. State St. MB 123 Suite 216 Ithaca, NY 14850) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
City of Ithaca • New York 111