Ordinance 4101-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 18 Everett 2044 Housing Element Appendix Category 2: Sensitfve informatfon Racially Disparate Impacts and Displacement Risks In 2023, the City’s Racially Disparate Impact analysis drew on HUD’s 2015–2019 CHAS data to document disparitfes in housing cost burden. This sectfon reprises the original narratfve—preserving its discussion of context, definitfons, and key findings—while replacing all applicable CHAS figures with the most recent 2017–2021 five-year averages. Introduction A principle of equitable policymaking is committing to reviewing the outcomes of adopted policies. For housing, this includes assessing the community for evidence of disparate impacts, exclusion and displacement. Examining disparitfes in outcomes such as rates of homeownership, cost burden, commute tfme or access to community amenitfes can reveal if the existfng policies have a discriminatory effect regardless of the policy intent. Measures can also include standards related to levels of service such as parks, educatfon or healthcare, among others. Everett’s vision and prioritfes guide the city to examine unfair outcomes, along with new state regulatfons that require the same. This analysis identffies unfair and disparate impacts, which are compounded by an unequal ability to partfcipate in all parts of zoning and planning processes. As zoning is used to selectfvely exclude unwanted types of buildings and land uses from some neighborhoods (or to allow them in some neighborhoods while excluding them from others), some areas become more attractfve to investors than others, and the same is true for residents and business owners. Those with more tfme to partfcipate in the system have more ability to influence the rules, and those with more money have more ability to buy property, operate businesses, and live in the neighborhoods that best meet their needs. Local Historical Patterns, Events or Actions Financing barriers and covenants restrictfng ownership by race were common decades ago, and while they are no longer legal, many of these impacts are stfll felt in our neighborhoods. The variatfons in housing and investment in neighborhoods that have been a consequence of these policies resulted in different outcomes for different people over tfme, with many groups facing challenges with accessing safe and healthy housing optfons and opportunitfes for homeownership. During Everett’s early years as a city, the private use of racially restrictfve covenants on property tftles was common. The popular use of racial restrictfve covenants emerged in 1917 when the U.S. Supreme Court deemed city segregatfon ordinances illegal. In the aflermath of this ruling, segregatfonists turned to restrictfve neighborhood covenants and a decade later, the Supreme Court affirmed their legality in Corrigan v. Buckley (1926). That court decision meant that the restrictfons would be binding on future owners of a property. A future sale that violated the racial rules could be reversed, at which point the new owner would be evicted and the seller could be held liable for substantfal damages. In other words, the restrictfons had the force of law. The use of racially restrictfve covenants was promoted at first by real estate professionals, led by the American Board of Realtors (ABR). The ABR and its local affiliates conducted educatfon campaigns startfng in the 1920s and contfnuing into the 1950s to persuade land developers, neighborhood associatfons, and individual property owners to "protect" property with racial restrictfve covenants. Snohomish County recorded new restrictfons as late as 1959. Research of private tftles in Everett revealed many propertfes in the Northwest, Cascade View and Twin Creeks neighborhoods carried racially restrictfve covenants from the 1940’s through the 1990’s. The