ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE

CITY OF BUFFALO
Byron W. Brown, Mayor

FEBRUARY 2014

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
introduction
Demographic and housing market conditions
records of housing discrimination
Review of public sector policies
private sector policies and practices
evaluation of current fair housing profile
general fair housing observations
impediments to fair housing choice
fair housing action plan

1
4
17
50
57
86
99
110
112
118

 1

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

The preparation of this Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice (AI) serves as a
component of the City of Buffalo’s efforts to
satisfy the requirements of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, which requires that any community
receiving Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds affirmatively further fair
housing. The AI is a review of local regulations
and administrative policies, procedures and
practices affecting the location, availability
and accessibility of housing, as well as an
assessment of conditions, both public and
private, that affect fair housing choice.
The City anticipates participation in a regional
Fair Housing Equity Assessment (FHEA) as
part of the Sustainable Communities Initiative
planning grant awarded to the region. While
the action steps in this document primarily
address areas within the City’s control, the
Regional FHEA will additionally identify and
address systemic regional impediments that
contribute to the concentration of poverty in
Buffalo.

1

 Following an extensive stakeholder consultation
process conducted in tandem with the City’s
Five-Year Consolidated Planning process, the
City built the context for analysis by examining
demographic, economic and housing market
trends within the framework of access to housing
opportunities. Continued population drain has
created a housing market that is affordable by
national standards, but suffers from high rates
of abandonment and blight. Buffalo has a high
rate of residential structures built more than 60
years ago, which are commonly inaccessible
to persons with disabilities, have toxic lead
paint or are otherwise in need of rehabilitation.
In many cases, the sum required to return a
unit to a habitable condition would exceed
the market value of the finished home. This
has discouraged private investment in
Buffalo’s neighborhoods, particularly in racially
concentrated areas of poverty.
Census data indicate that racial and ethnic
minorities, persons with disabilities and
female-headed households with children
are more likely to experience poverty and
unemployment. Buffalo contains the region’s
concentrations of lower-income minorities,
and within the City, segregated settlement
patterns are still evident, though integration
has increased within the last 10 years.
An analysis of housing discrimination
complaints revealed the persistence of unequal
treatment in the local sales and rental markets,
particularly on the basis of race. The City
benefits from services provided by a network
of fair housing advocates, who enforce a wide
array of state and local protections as well as
the federal Fair Housing Act. Buffalo’s 2006
Fair Housing Ordinance has eliminated source
of income as a legal basis of discrimination,
though it does not apply to owner-occupied
two- and three-unit homes, and landlords
reportedly avoid the requirement by failing to
meet Section 8 Housing Quality Standards.

In the years following the landmark Comer
fair housing settlement, a successful voucher
mobility program continues to help families
settle across Erie County. However, the three
agencies administering vouchers locally have
reverted to some pre-Comer practices, such as
maintaining separate waiting lists.
The AI’s review of public policies covered the
aspects of local government most closely tied
to housing, including the City’s entitlement
grants programs, appointed boards and
commissions, building codes enforcement,
language
accommodations,
land
use
regulations, public housing, taxes and transit.
The City’s ambitious new form-based Green
Code promises to broaden affordable housing
development opportunities across more
neighborhoods, though it must also remedy
the discriminatory current treatment given to
group homes for persons with disabilities. Site
selection for the City’s HOME program has
been seemingly developer-driven, which has
resulted in the recent siting of subsidized units
in high-poverty areas. The City’s fair housing
officer is stretched thin, expected to enforce
the fair housing ordinance while carrying out a
variety of additional responsibilities.
Private-sector policies were also evaluated
from a fair housing perspective. A thorough
review of mortgage application data suggested
that upper-income minorities are more likely to
experience loan denials or high-cost lending
than lower-income White applicants.
Many of the impediments identified in this report
can be found in cities throughout the country
and are not unique to Buffalo. Economic
and racial/ethnic segregation, among many
other challenges identified in this report, are
national problems, but the responsibility for
addressing these issues falls primarily to
each local jurisdiction where they are present.
Affirmatively furthering fair housing is an
ongoing process that requires the leadership
of elected officials, and the development of
this plan is the next step toward increasing fair
housing choice in Buffalo.

2

 The concluding sections of this report identify
general fair housing observations, which define
the underlying conditions, trends and context
for fair housing planning in the City, as well
as impediments to fair housing choice. The
impediments, listed briefly here as summary
categories, are described in detail starting on
Page 117 and are accompanied by action steps.
Finally, action steps have been organized into
a Fair Housing Action Plan to assist the City
in planning and carrying out activities that will
address the identified impediments.

Public Sector Impediments
(policy Based):

1

Barriers to the development of group
homes

2

Concentration of voucher holders in
racially/ethnically concentrated areas of
poverty

3

Lack of centralized
administration

4
5
6

Lack of transit connections between
residents and employment

fair

housing

Policy document improvements
Boards and commissions representation

Public Sector Impediments
(Market Based):

7
8
9
10

Limited-English-speaking
needs

population

Poor condition of housing stock
Availability of decent, affordable rental
units
Persistence of housing discrimination

private Sector Impediments
(market Based):
units for persons with
11 Accessible
disabilities
12 Patterns of disparity in private lending

3

 2

INTRODUCTION

purpose of the ai
The City of Buffalo has prepared an
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice (AI) to satisfy the requirements of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended. This act requires
that any community receiving Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
affirmatively further fair housing.
As
a result, the City is charged with the
responsibility of conducting its CDBG
programs in compliance with the federal
Fair Housing Act. The responsibility of
compliance with the federal Fair Housing
Act extends to nonprofit organizations and
other entities that receive federal funds
through the City.
These requirements can be achieved
through the preparation of an AI and
implementation of recommended action
items. The AI is a review of a jurisdiction’s
laws, regulations and administrative
policies, procedures and practices
affecting the location, availability and
accessibility of housing, as well as an
assessment of conditions, both public and
private, affecting fair housing choice.

Entitlement communities receiving
entitlement funds are required to:

CDBG

•

Examine and attempt to alleviate
housing discrimination within their
jurisdiction

•

Promote fair housing choice for all
persons

•

Provide opportunities for all persons
to reside in any given housing
development, regardless of race, color,
religion, sex, disability, familial status or
national origin

•

Promote housing that is accessible to
and usable by persons with disabilities,
and

•

Comply with the non-discrimination
requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

4

 methodology

DEVELOPMENT OF THE AI

The firm of Mullin & Lonergan Associates,
Inc. (M&L) was retained as consultants
to conduct the AI.
M&L utilized a
comprehensive approach to complete the
Analysis involving the City of Buffalo. The
following sources were utilized:

The City’s Office of Strategic Planning was
the lead agency for the preparation of the
AI. Staff members identified and invited
numerous stakeholders to participate in
the process for the purpose of developing
a thorough analysis with a practical set of
recommendations to eliminate impediments
to fair housing choice, where identified.

•

•

Public policies affecting the siting and
development of housing

•

Administrative policies concerning
housing and community development

•

Financial lending institution data from
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
(HMDA) database

•

Agencies that provide housing and
housing related services to members
of the protected classes

•

The Consolidated Plan, Annual Action
Plans and CAPERs for the City

•

Fair housing complaints filed with
HUD, the New York Division of Human
Rights, the New York Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity and
local agencies such as HOME

•

Real estate advertisements from area
newspapers of record

•

Historic race and ethnicity data and
shapefiles from the National Historic
GIS, a project of the University of
Minnesota Population Center

•

5

The
most
recently
available
demographic
data
regarding
population, household, housing,
income and employment at the
census tract and block group level

Interviews conducted with agencies
and organizations that provide
housing and housing related services
to members of the protected classes.

The City engaged in a consultation process
with local public agencies, nonprofit
organizations and other interested entities
in an effort to develop both the Five-Year
Consolidated Plan and the AI. A series of
written questionnaires were mailed to many
of the interviewees, and detailed lists of
issues were developed for the focus group
sessions and interviews.
During December 2012, the consulting team
conducted a series of focus group sessions
and individual interviews to identify current
fair housing issues impacting the various
agencies and organizations and their clients.
Comments received through these meetings
and interviews are incorporated throughout
the AI, where appropriate.
Throughout this report, emphasis is placed
on the City of Buffalo, with the understanding
that the pattern of residential segregation
extends beyond its borders. This AI focuses
on strategies that can be implemented by the
City, though the forthcoming Regional AI will
more fully explore problems and solutions
that cross boundaries.
In all cases, the latest available data was
used to describe the most appropriate
geographic unit of analysis. In most cases,
2010 Census data and 2010 American
Community Survey (ACS) were available
and incorporated into this report. Where the
margin of error for block group estimates
was unacceptably high due to small sample
size, census tract data has been used.

 legal trends in fair
housing enforcement
In recent years, the federal government
has increasingly emphasized the obligation
of grantees to affirmatively further fair
housing and, specifically, the way in which
entitlement communities comply with their
required fair housing certifications. Each
year when an entitlement community
submits its Annual Action Plan to HUD,
the chief elected official is required to
certify that the jurisdiction will affirmatively
further fair housing. However, the Fair
Housing Act of 1968, which created
that mandate, did not specify what
precisely it meant, leaving open a wide
range of interpretations reflected in the
varying policies and practices of grantee
communities. Legal proceedings between
grantees, HUD and the U.S. Department
of Justice within the last 10 years have
provided some clarification.
In August 2009, Westchester County,
NY settled a fair housing lawsuit
brought against the county by the AntiDiscrimination Center of Metro New York,
Inc. This $180 million lawsuit charged
that Westchester County, an urban
county entitlement under HUD’s CDBG
program, failed to fulfill its obligation
to affirmatively further fair housing and
ensure non-discrimination in its programs.
At issue in the case was not whether
Westchester County created affordable
housing. In fact, since 1998, the County
spent more than $50 million in federal and
state funds to aid in the construction of
1,370 affordable rental units and another
334 affordable owner units. It was the

geographic location of affordable housing
units that were created within the county that
was the critical factor in the lawsuit, as the
Center alleged that the county increased the
pattern of racial segregation in Westchester
County. Furthermore, the suit charged that
the county violated its cooperation agreements
with local units of government which prohibits
expenditures of CDBG funds for activities in
communities that do not affirmatively further
fair housing within their jurisdiction or otherwise
impede the county’s action to comply with its
fair housing certifications.
Under the terms of the settlement, the County
paid $21.6 million to HUD in non-federal funds
to the County’s HUD account and used the
funds to build new affordable housing units in
specified census tracts with populations of less
than 3% Black and 7% Hispanic residents. The
County paid an additional $11 million to HUD,
the Center and its counsel. The county was
forced to add $30 million to its capital budget to
build affordable housing in non-impacted (i.e.,
predominantly White) areas.
In another example, HUD threatened in July
2012 to withhold more than a half billion dollars
in disaster recovery funds from the City of
Galveston in response to the City’s refusal to
rebuild 569 low-income housing units lost as
a result of Hurricane Ike. The City’s mayor,
who had promised during his campaign not
to rebuild the units, favored allocating rental
vouchers to those displaced by the storm,
which he said would allow residents to live
“where they have job opportunities, which
do not exist in Galveston.” HUD argued that

6

 this was effectively a means of limiting the
affordable housing available in Galveston, a
problem that would disproportionately affect
members of the protected classes. The agency
authorized $109 million in federal funds to
replace the lost housing within the City in
mixed-income developments, mandating that
Galveston rebuild.
In August 2011, the U.S. Department of
Justice filed a lawsuit against the City of Joliet,
IL, alleging that the City violated the Fair
Housing Act and Community Development Act
by seizing via eminent domain an affordable
housing development of 356 units, displacing
750 residents, almost all of whom were Black
female-headed households with children.
The Department argued that the displaced
residents would have nowhere within the City fo
live if the units were destroyed, due to the lack
of affordable housing available locally and the
absence of a “meaningful plan” to counteract
the effects of the loss of units. Therefore,
according to the argument, the City’s actions
would have the effect of limiting the number
of Black residents within Joliet, perpetuating
segregation.
The City’s Department of
Economic and Community Development,
which had administered more than $1 million
in federal funds, was accused of violating
Section 109 of the Housing and Community
Development Act by its involvement in City
actions to condemn the affordable housing
development. The case remains in litigation,
with HUD withholding the City’s CDBG and
HOME allocations for 2011 and 2012.

7

The significance of these proceedings for HUD
grantee communities throughout the U.S. is
clear. First, the requirement to affirmatively
further fair housing applies to all aspects of
local government, not just HUD programs.
Second, a grantee has an obligation to ensure
that each agency that participates in its federal
programs affirmatively furthers fair housing.
When a grantee makes this pledge to HUD, it
is making the promise not just in its own right
but also on behalf of its grant subrecipients.
Finally, within the scope of its authority, a
grantee must take action to eliminate barriers
to fair housing wherever they may exist within
its jurisdiction.

 fair housing
choice
The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits
discrimination in housing based on a person’s
race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
status or national origin. Persons who are
protected from discrimination by fair housing
laws are referred to as members of the
protected classes.
Equal and free access to residential housing
(housing choice) is a fundamental right that
enables members of the protected classes to
pursue personal, educational, employment or
other goals. Because housing choice is so
critical to personal development, fair housing
is a goal that government, public officials and
private citizens must embrace if equality of
opportunity is to become a reality.
This AI encompasses the following five areas
related to fair housing choice:
•

The sale or rental of dwellings (public
and private)

•

The provision of financing assistance
for dwellings

•

Public policies and actions affecting
the approval of sites and other building
requirements used in the approval
process for the construction of publicly
assisted housing

•

The administrative policies concerning
community development and housing
activities, which affect opportunities of
minority households to select housing
inside or outside areas of minority
concentration, and

•

Where there is a determination of
unlawful segregation or other housing
discrimination by a court or a finding
of noncompliance by HUD regarding
assisted housing in a recipient’s
jurisdiction, an analysis of the actions
which could be taken by the recipient
to remedy the discriminatory condition,
including
actions
involving
the
expenditure of funds made available
under 24 CFR Part 570 (i.e., the CDBG
program regulations).

As a federal entitlement community, the City
of Buffalo has specific fair housing planning
responsibilities. These include:
•

Conducting an Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice

•

Developing actions to overcome
the effects of identified impediments to
fair housing, and

•

Maintaining records to support the
jurisdiction’s initiatives to affirmatively
further fair housing.

HUD interprets these three certifying elements
to include:
•

Analyzing housing discrimination in
a jurisdiction and working toward its
elimination

•

Promoting fair housing choice for all
people

•

Providing racially and ethnically
inclusive patterns of housing occupancy

•

Promoting housing that is physically
accessible to, and usable by, all people,
particularly individuals with disabilities,
and

•

Fostering
compliance
with
the
nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair
Housing Act.

8

 This AI will:
•

Evaluate population, household, income
and housing characteristics by protected
classes.

•

Evaluate public and private sector policies
that impact fair housing choice

•

Identify blatant or de facto impediments to
fair housing choice where any may exist,
and

•

Recommend
specific
strategies
to
overcome the effects of any identified
impediments.

HUD defines an impediment to fair housing
choice as any actions, omissions or decisions
that restrict or have the effect of restricting the
availability of housing choices, based on race,
color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or
national origin.
This AI serves as the basis for fair housing
planning, provides essential information to
policy makers, administrative staff, housing
providers, lenders, and fair housing advocates,
and assists in building public support for fair
housing efforts. The elected governmental
bodies are expected to review and approve
the AI and use it for direction, leadership and
resources for future fair housing planning.
The AI will also serve as a point-in-time
baseline against which future progress in
terms of implementing fair housing initiatives
will be evaluated and recorded.

9

 the federal
fair housing act
1. What housing is covered?

b. In mortgage lending

The federal Fair Housing Act covers most
housing. In some circumstances, the Act
exempts owner-occupied buildings with no
more than four units, single family housing
sold or rented without the use of a broker,
and housing operated by organizations
and private clubs that limit occupancy to
members.

No one may take any of the following
actions based on race, color, religion,
sex, disability, familial status or national
origin:
•

Refuse to make a mortgage loan

•

Refuse to provide information
regarding loans

•

Impose
different
terms
or
conditions on a loan, such as
different interest rates, points or
fees

•

Discriminate
property

•

Refuse to purchase a loan, or

•

Set different terms or conditions
for purchasing a loan.

2. What does the Fair Housing Act
prohibit?
a. In the sale and rental of housing
No one may take any of the following
actions based on race, color, religion,
sex, disability, familial status or national
origin:
•

Refuse to rent or sell housing

•

Refuse to negotiate for housing

•

Make housing unavailable

•

Deny a dwelling

•

Set different terms, conditions or
privileges for the sale or rental of
a dwelling

•

Provide
different
services or facilities

•

Falsely deny that housing is
available for inspection, sale, or
rental

•

Persuade owners to sell or rent
(blockbusting), or

•

Deny anyone access to or
membership in a facility or
service (such as a multiple listing
service) related to the sale or
rental of housing.

housing

in

appraising

c. Other prohibitions
It is illegal for anyone to:
•

Threaten, coerce, intimidate or
interfere with anyone exercising
a fair housing right or assisting
others who exercise that right.

•

Advertise or make any statement
that indicates a limitation or
preference based on race, color,
religion, sex, disability, familial
status, or national origin. This
prohibition against discriminatory
advertising applies to single family
and owner-occupied housing that
is otherwise exempt from the Fair
Housing Act.

10

 3. Additional protections for
people with disabilities
If someone has a physical or mental
disability (including hearing, mobility and
visual impairments, chronic alcoholism,
chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS
Related Complex and mental retardation)
that substantially limits one or more major
life activities, or has a record of such a
disability, or is regarded as having such a
disability, a landlord may not:
•

•

Refuse to let the disabled person
make reasonable modifications to
a dwelling or common use areas,
at the disabled person’s expense,
if necessary for the disabled
person to use the housing. Where
reasonable, the landlord may permit
changes only if the disabled person
agrees to restore the property to its
original condition when he or she
moves.
Refuse to make reasonable
accommodations in rules, policies,
practices or services if necessary
for the disabled person to use the
housing. For example, a building
with a “no pets” policy must make
a reasonable accommodation and
allow a visually impaired tenant to
keep a guide dog.

4. Housing opportunities for
families with children
Unless a building or community qualifies
as housing for older persons, it may not
discriminate based on familial status. That
is, it may not discriminate against families
in which one or more children under the
age 18 live with:
•

A parent or

•

A person who has legal custody of
the child or children or

•

The designee of the parent or
legal custodian, with the parent or
custodian’s written permission.

Familial status protection also applies to
pregnant women and anyone securing
legal custody of a child under age 18.
Housing for older persons is exempt from
the prohibition against familial status
discrimination if:
•

The HUD Secretary has determined
that it is specifically designed for
and occupied by elderly persons
under a federal, state or local
government program, or

•

It is occupied solely by persons
who are 62 or older, or

•

It houses at least one person who
is 55 or older in at least 80% of the
occupied units, and adheres to a
policy that demonstrates the intent
to house persons who are 55 or
older, as previously described.

A transition period permits residents on or
before September 13, 1988 to continue
living in the housing, regardless of their
age, without interfering with the exemption.

11

 the new york human
rights law
The New York Human Rights Law (Article
15 of the New York State Executive Law)
prohibits housing discrimination based on
race, creed, color, national origin, sexual
orientation, military status, sex, age,
disability, marital status or familial status.
State or local laws may be certified as
substantially equivalent to the federal
Fair Housing Act when HUD determines
that the law provides rights, procedures,
remedies and judicial review provisions
that are substantially equivalent to the Act.
Currently, the New York State Division of
Human Rights participates in HUD’s Fair
Housing Assistance Program (FHAP)
by virtue of the New York Human Rights
Law having been deemed substantially
equivalent to the federal Fair Housing
Act. Participation allows the agency the
opportunity to receive funding to support a
variety of fair housing administrative and
enforcement activities, including complaint
processing, training, implementation of
data and information systems and other
special projects.
Section 296 of the Human Rights Law
describes the unlawful acts of discrimination
related to fair housing. These include:
•

Discriminatory real estate practices,
including refusal to sell or lease
housing accommodations to members
of the protected classes

•

Discrimination in the terms, conditions
and privileges of real estate
transactions

•

Printing or circulating any statement,
advertisement,
publication
or
application with the intent or effect of
making limitations, specifications or
discrimination with regard to protected
classes

•

Representing
that
any
housing
accommodation, land or commercial
space is not available for inspection, sale,
rental or lease when it in fact is available,
or to otherwise deny or withhold any
housing accommodation on the basis of
protected class status

•

Excluding or expelling qualified individuals
from real estate board membership on
the basis of protected class status, or
discriminating against such an individual
in the terms, conditions and privileges of
board membership

Additionally, Section 296-a explains unlawful
discriminatory practices in relation to credit,
outlining prohibitions related to discrimination
in the lending of money to acquire, construct,
rehabilitate, repair or maintain housing.
Section 293 of the Human Rights Law
establishes the Division of Human Rights
within the state’s executive department.
Among other powers, the Division has
statutory authority to adopt suitable rules and
regulations to carry out the provisions of the
Human Rights Law, initiate investigations
and studies, hold hearings and provide for
cross interrogations, subpoena witnesses,
impel their attendance, administer oaths,
take testimony and promote the creation of
human rights agencies by counties, cities,
villages or towns.
The New York Human Rights Law describes
unlawful acts of discrimination and sets forth
the procedures for aggrieved parties to file
complaints.

12

 local discrimination
prohibitions
1. Buffalo Fair Housing Ordinance

the issuance of property insurance
to discriminate in the issuance or
terms and conditions of a loan or
insurance policy because of race,
creed, color, national origin, sex,
disability, familial status, marital
status, age, sexual orientation,
gender identity and expression,
military status or lawful source of
income.

In 2006, the City of Buffalo adopted its
own Fair Housing Ordinance (Chapter 154
Charter and Code of the City of Buffalo)
to protect the rights of its citizens to equal
access to housing, in order to help preserve
property values and ensure housing choice
for all residents.
The ordinance makes it unlawful for any
person or entity engaged in the sale or
rental of housing to:
•

•

•

13

Refuse to sell, rent, lease, to any
person
housing
accommodation
because of race, creed, color, national
origin, sex, disability, familial status,
marital status, age, sexual orientation,
gender identity and expression, military
status or source of income
Discriminate against any person in
the terms, conditions, or privileges of
sale, rental or lease of any housing
accommodation on the basis of
protected class status
Induce any person to sell or rent
any housing accommodation by
representations
regarding
the
entry or prospective entry into the
neighborhood of persons according to
protected class status

•

Refuse
to
permit
reasonable
modifications for persons of disabilities,
if such modifications may be necessary
to afford such person full enjoyment of
the housing accommodation.

•

For any bank or business making
loans or arranging financing for
housing or secured by real property or

The law designated a Fair Housing
Officer to receive, investigate, and/
or refer complaints to a qualified fair
housing enforcement agency.
The ordinance charges the Fair Housing
Officer with the following additional
duties:
•

Receive
complaints
alleging
violation of the ordinance from any
person or organization in writing

•

Notify the accused party within 30
days of the date of the filing of the
complaint and request the accused
party to answer the complaint in
writing within 20 days after the
mailing of the notice.

•

Create a conciliation agreement
if deemed appropriate to resolve
the complaint. Included would be
provisions requiring the accused
party to refrain from unlawful
discriminatory practices, and may
include
compensation
and/or
affirmative relief as is agreed upon
by the parties.

•

Within 120 days of the date of the
complaint, the Fair Housing Officer
shall conclude the investigation
and determine whether there is

 probable cause to support a finding of
discriminatory conduct by the accused
party.
•

The Fair Housing Officer shall prepare
an annual report detailing the work
performed. This report shall be
submitted to the Mayor and filed with
the City Clerk no later than March 1st
of each year. Copies shall also be
sent to the Commissioner of the New
York State Division of Human Rights,
the Attorney General of the State of
New York, and the Secretary of the
United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development.

2. Erie County Protections for
Persons with Disabilities and
Women
Erie County created a Division for the
Disabled (Article 17, Section 1706;
Amended in 2009) to serve the following
functions:
•

Evaluate and provide reasonable
accommodations to county employees
under the Americans with Disabilities
ACT (ADA) or New York Executive
Law

•

Advocate for the benefits and services
which disabled persons are entitled
to under the law and represent the
disabled in various areas of concern
affecting their rights as citizens

•

Identify and recommend to public and
private agencies and organizations
which serve the disabled, to the
county legislature and to the county
executive appropriate sources of state,
federal and private financial assistance
for purposes of comprehensively
expanding services and programs for
the disabled

•

Act as the county administrative officer
for planning and coordinating services
for the disabled in cooperation with the
county executive, county legislature,
county departments and public and
private agencies and organizations
which serve the disabled.

•

Submit an annual report in
accordance with the ADA of activities
and recommendations to the county
executive and county legislature.

Section 1707 of Article 17 created an
Advisory Board to the Division for the
disabled. No details of a specific mission
statement or tasks and goals are stated
in the statute.
Erie County created a Division on the
Status of Women (Article 17, Section
1704; Amended in 2009) to eliminate
discrimination on account of gender, with
regard to employment, education, health
and mental health, housing, senior and
social services.
Among other duties, the division was
deemed responsible to investigate and
analyze resources and services available
for women within county government
and programs funded by the county and
recommend measures to coordinate,
consolidate or expand those resources
and services to provide maximum
efficiency.
Section 1705 of Article 17 also created an
Advisory Commission to the Division on
the Status of Women. The law established
nine to 15 members to be appointed by
the County Executive. Other than the
commission being created to advise the
division, the statute contains no further
details.

14

 comparison of
accessibility
standards
There are several standards of accessibility
referenced throughout the AI.
These
standards are listed below along with
a summary of the features within each
category or a reference to the full set of
detailed standards.

1. Fair Housing Act
In buildings that are ready for first
occupancy after March 13, 1991 and
include four or more units:
•

There must be an accessible
entrance on an accessible route.

•

Public and common areas must
be accessible to persons with
disabilities

•

Doors and hallways must be wide
enough for wheelchairs

•

All ground floor units and all units in
elevator buildings must have:
aAn accessible route into and
through the unit
aAccessible light switches,
electrical outlets, thermostats
and other environmental
controls
aReinforced bathroom walls to
allow later installation of grab
bars, and
aKitchens and bathrooms that
can be used by people in
wheelchairs.

If a building with four or more units has
no elevator and will be ready for first
occupancy after March 13, 1991, these
standards apply to ground floor units.
These requirements for new buildings do
not replace any more stringent standards
in state or local law.

15

2. Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA)
Title II of the ADA applies to state and local
services, including state and local housing
programs. Government entities are obliged
to assure that housing financed through
state and local programs complies with
ADA accessibility guidelines. A complete
description of the guidelines can be found
at www.ada.gov/stdspdf.htm.

3. Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards (UFAS)
UFAS accessibility standards are required
for facility accessibility by people with motor
and sensory disabilities for Federal and
federally-funded facilities. These standards
are to be applied during the design,
construction, and alteration of buildings
and facilities to the extent required by
the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as
amended. A complete description of the
guidelines can be found at www.accessboard.gov/ufas/ufas-html/ufas.htm.

 4. Visitability Standards
The term “visitability” refers to singlefamily housing designed in such a way
that it can be lived in or visited by people
with disabilities. A house is visitable when
it meets three basic requirements:
•

At least one no-step entrance

•

Doors and hallways wide
enough to navigate a wheelchair
through, and

•

A bathroom on the first floor
large enough to allow a person
in a wheelchair to enter and
close the door.

5. Universal Design
Universal design is the design of products
and environments to be usable by all
people, to the greatest extent possible,
without adaptation or specialized design.
Seven principles guide Universal Design.
These include:
•

Equitable use (make the design
appealing to all users)

•

Flexibility in use (accommodate
right- or left-handed use)

•

Simple and intuitive
(eliminate unnecessary
complexity)

•

Perceptible information (provide
compatibility with a variety of
techniques or devices used by
people with sensory limitations)

•

Tolerance for error (provide failsafe features)

•

Low physical effort (minimize
repetitive actions)

•

Size and space for approach
and use (accommodate
variations in hand and grip size).

use

16

 3

Demographic and
Housing Market
Conditions

Overview of
Settlement Patterns
The City of Buffalo has been characterized in
the last six decades by continued population
loss and the challenges this presents. Patterns
of racial segregation developed as early as the
1920s and are still evident today. Population
exodus and declining housing values have
introduced some opportunity for integration,
as neighborhoods that were previously out of
reach have opened to minority populations.
All the same, the City’s Black and Hispanic
populations tend to be located in high-poverty
neighborhoods. Within the larger context
of the region, Buffalo contains not only a
high proportion of members of the protected
classes, but also a high proportion of subsidized
housing.

17

 Figure 3-1

Decennial Population Change, 1970-2010

Buffalo City

1970

1980

10-Year
Change

1990

10-Year
Change

2000

10-Year
Change

2010

10-Year
Change

% Change
1970-2010

462,768

357,870

-23%

328,123

-8%

292,648

-11%

261,310

-11%

-44%

Erie County

1,113,491

1,015,472

-9%

968,532

-5%

950,265

-2%

919,040

-3%

-17%

Buffalo-Niagara MSA

1,349,211

1,242,826

-8%

1,189,288

-4%

1,170,111

-2%

1,135,509

-3%

-16%

New York State

18,236,967

17,558,072

-4%

17,990,455

2%

18,976,457

5%

19,378,102

2%

6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Population Trends
Between 1970 and 2010, the regional
metropolitan statistical area and Erie County
lost 213,702 (16%) and 194,451 (18%)
residents, respectively. However, Buffalo
shouldered a disproportionally high percentage
of the region’s population drain, losing 44%
of its residents during those four decades.
Buffalo’s 2010 population is 55% lower than
its peak population of 580,132 in 1950. The
City’s population loss between 2000 and 2010
was almost identical in percentage to the loss
sustained between 1990 and 2000.
Figure 3-2 compares Buffalo’s population with
comparable cities. Among this group, Buffalo
had the fourth-highest reduction, losing 11%
of its population between 2000 and 2010.
The greatest loss was in Detroit, at 25%,
followed by Flint and Cleveland at 18% and
17%, respectively. A handful of other cities
had losses within two percentage points of
Buffalo’s population loss, including Pittsburgh,
Toledo and Niagara Falls.

Figure 3-2

Population Comparison among Similar Cities

Buffalo, NY

2010
Population

Change
since 2000

2010 Land
Area

2010
Density

261,310

-11%

40

6,470

Syracuse, NY

145,170

-1%

25

5,797

Rochester, NY

210,565

-4%

36

5,885

Albany, NY

97,856

2%

21

4,575

Niagara Falls, NY

50,195

-10%

14

3,563
3,714

Utica, NY

62,235

3%

17

Erie, PA

101,786

-2%

19

5,334

Pittsburgh, PA

305,704

-9%

55

5,521

Cleveland, OH

396,815

-17%

78

5,107

Toledo, OH

287,208

-8%

81

3,559

Detroit, MI

713,777

-25%

139

5,144

Flint, MI

102,434

-18%

33

3,065

Note: Area is in miles; density is persons per square mile.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Even with recent
population losses,
Buffalo remains more
densely populated than
comparable cities, with
6,470 persons per mile
across its 40 square-mile
land area.

18

 Figure 3-3

Racial and Ethnic Population Composition, 2000-2010
2000

2010

#

%

#

%

Buffalo City

292,648

100%

261,310

100%

White

159,300

54%

131,753

50%

Non-White

133,348

46%

129,557

50%
39%

108,951

37%

100,774

Asian/Pacific Islander

4,213

1%

8,528

3%

American Indian

2,250

1%

800

0%

Some other race

10,755

4%

10,247

4%

Black

Two or more races
Hispanic*
Source:

an

7,179

3%

7,999

3%

22,076

8%

27,519

11%

S

*Hispanic ethnicity is counted independently of race

Blacks continue to
represent the City’s
largest minority group,
accounting for 39% of
all Buffalo residents in
2010.

While there was a net
population loss among
Whites and Blacks
between 2000 and 2010,
the number of Asians,
multi-race and Hispanic
residents increased.

19

As of 2010, half of Buffalo residents were
White. While the non-White population
decreased in raw numbers by 3% between
2000 and 2010, its share of the total population
increased by 4%, due to a larger decline in the
White population.
During the same decade, the City’s Asian
population more than doubled. The number of
Hispanic residents increased 25%, comprising
11% of the City’s total population in 2010.
While Buffalo’s Black population decreased by
about 8,000 residents, their percentage of the
City’s population increased from 37% to 39%,
within the context of overall population loss.

 Studying the distribution of population by race
and ethnicity in years prior to 2000 is difficult
due to changing Census boundaries. Map 3-2
is a time series comparing the proportion of
Blacks from 1960 to 2010. Map 3-3 is a similar
time series for the Hispanic population, dating
back to 1990, 10 years after the Census Bureau
began recording “Spanish ethnicity.” These
historic patterns provide some context for the
current areas of racial and ethnic concentration
presented in later maps.
Early clusters of Black residents appeared in
the Ellicott and MLK Park neighborhoods, which
have remained concentrated areas through
2010. The City’s Black population filled in
heavily in its central neighborhoods, including
the East Delavan, Ellicott and Masten planning
areas. Across the six decades depicted, White
flight accelerated the growing population share
of Blacks in many census tracts.
In 1990, Buffalo’s Hispanic population was
relatively small, representing more than half of
residents in only the Lakeview neighborhood,
though they comprised more than a quarter
of Front Park and Columbus. Since then, the
Hispanic population has expanded in higher
concentrations along the City’s West Side.

20

 map 3-1

Black Population Distribution
by Tract, 1960-1980
Source:
Minnesota Population Center.
National Historical Geographic Information
System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota 2011.

Census Tracts
Percent Black

1960

Less than 5%
5% to 20%
20% to 50%
50% to 70%
More than 70%

1970

21

1980

 map 3-1 (CONTINUED)

Black Population Distribution
by Tract, 1990-2010

Census Tracts
Percent Black
Less than 5%
5% to 20%
20% to 50%
50% to 70%

1990

More than 70%

2000

2010

22

 map 3-2

Hispanic Population Distribution
by Tract, 1990-2010
Source:
Minnesota Population Center.
National Historical Geographic Information
System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota 2011.

Census Tracts
Percent Hispanic
Less than 5%
5% to 10%
10% to 25%

1990

23

2000

25% to 50%
More than 50%

2010

 Racial and/or Ethnic
Concentrations
Federal regulations at 24 CFR Part 91.210
require grantees of HUD Community Planning
and Development programs to identify and
describe any areas within their jurisdictions that
are concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities
and/or low-income families, though HUD
leaves the determination of thresholds defining
those areas up to each local grantee. The City
of Buffalo’s Consolidated Plan for FY 20132017 establishes a threshold for defining areas
of racial or ethnic concentration: Any area in
which the percentage of a single ethnic or
minority group is at least 10 percentage points
higher than across the City overall.

criterion. An area of Asian concentration, by
the same definition, would include any tract
where the percentage of Asian residents is
13% or higher. Of the 292 block groups in the
City, 14 (5%) met this criterion. In Hispanicconcentrated block groups, at least 21% of the
population is Hispanic. Of all block groups, 45
(15%) met this definition.

For purposes of the AI, census block groups
were determined to be the most appropriate
unit of analysis. Across Buffalo in 2010, Blacks
comprised 39% of the population. Therefore,
an area of Black concentration would include
any block group where the percentage of Black
residents is 49% or higher. Of the 292 block
groups within the City, 107 (37%) met this

The CDBG program includes a statutory
requirement that at least 70% of funds
invested benefit low and moderate income
(LMI) persons. As a result, HUD provides the
percentage of LMI persons in each census
block group for entitlements such as the City
of Buffalo. The City invests its CDBG funds
primarily in areas where the percentage LMI
persons is 51% or higher (LMI areas).

Almost nine in every 10
block groups in Buffalo is
racially and/or ethnicically
concentrated. Most of
these areas (83%) qualify
as low- and moderate
income (LMI).

There is some overlap among concentrations,
as Figure 3-6 demonstrates. Due to the
large number of block groups involved in the
analysis, Figure 3-6 summarizes at the census
tract level.

Map 3-3 displays the distribution of racially and/
or ethnically concentrated block groups across
the City. Map 3-4 shows where these block
groups overlap with those that are at least 51
percent low and moderate income. Map 3-5
isolates block groups meeting both criteria,
which will be referred to as racially/ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty (RCAPS/
ECAPS) in other sections of the AI. Of the 253
concentrated block groups, 210 (83%) are also
LMI.

24

 Figure 3-4

Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Tracts, 2010
a t
14.02
15
16
25.02
27.02
28
29
30
31
33.01
33.02
34
35
36
37
38
39.01
40.01
41
42
43
44.01
44.02
46.01
46.02
47
52.02
55
56
57
58.02
59
61
65.01
66.01
67.01
67.02
69.01
69.02
70
71.01
71.02
72.02
164
166
168
170
171
Source:

25

o ulation

an

261,310
3,253
1,485
2,283
2,187
2,425
2,346
1,997
2,654
2,294
3,565
3,119
2,757
3,311
2,608
4,468
3,108
1,150
4,013
4,497
3,520
5,975
4,165
2,682
3,514
1,374
6,709
2917
4,054
4,182
2,923
4,881
3,957
4,986
2,883
2,441
3,354
3,224
3,773
3,948
3,133
3,642
2,681
1,639
3,035
2,451
3,718
3,072
4,577
S

a e thni ity
Black
39%
93%
88%
60%
84%
52%
63%
85%
70%
92%
91%
91%
94%
94%
89%
85%
80%
89%
84%
90%
92%
79%
89%
94%
15%
13%
64%
52%
19%
27%
17%
12%
16%
27%
12%
16%
17%
23%
23%
18%
21%
27%
36%
21%
48%
93%
89%
92%
28%

Asian
3%
0%
1%
6%
1%
26%
3%
1%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
0%
23%
29%
5%
1%
6%
3%
2%
5%
7%
11%
6%
8%
6%
4%
16%
11%
9%
3%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
8%

Hispanic
11%
4%
4%
4%
5%
2%
4%
4%
7%
3%
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
2%
3%
2%
5%
4%
6%
4%
3%
16%
23%
27%
23%
20%
30%
12%
20%
11%
7%
40%
25%
41%
60%
39%
26%
21%
2%
4%
2%
26%

 map
3-3Comparison of Concentrations and LMI Areas
2012

Census Tracts

City of Buffalo, NY

% Asian > 13.3

Areas of Racial and/or Ethnic Concentration, 2010

% Hispanic > 20.5

Source: 2010 Census SF-1

% Black > 48.6

26

 map 3-4

Census Tracts

Comparison of LMI and Racially/Ethnically
Concentrated Block Groups, 2010

> 51% LMI

Sources: 2010 Census SF-1,
2012 HUD LMI Estimates

% Hispanic > 20.5

27

% Asian > 13.3

% Black > 48.6

 map 3-5

Racially/Ethnically Concentrated LMI Block Groups, 2010
Sources: 2010 Census SF-1,
2012 HUD LMI Estimates

Census Tracts
Impacted Areas

28

 Quantifying Integration
Residential segregation is a measure of the
degree of separation of racial or ethnic groups
living in a neighborhood or community. Typically,
the pattern of residential segregation involves
the existence of predominantly homogenous,
White suburban communities and low-income
minority inner-city neighborhoods.
Latent
factors, such as attitudes, or overt factors, such
as real estate practices, can limit the range of
housing opportunities for minorities. A lack
of racial or ethnic integration in a community
creates other problems, such as reinforcing
prejudicial attitudes and behaviors, narrowing
opportunities for interaction, and reducing the
degree to which community life is considered
harmonious.
Areas of extreme minority
isolation often experience poverty and social
problems at rates that are disproportionately
high.6
Racial segregation has been linked
to diminished employment prospects, poor
educational attainment, increased infant and
adult mortality rates and increased homicide
rates.
The distribution of racial or ethnic groups across
a geographic area can be analyzed using an
index of dissimilarity. This method allows
for comparisons between subpopulations,
indicating how much one group is spatially
separated from another within a community.
The index is typically interpreted as the
percentage of the minority population (in this
instance, the Black population) that would
have to move in order for a community or
neighborhood to achieve full integration. The
index of dissimilarity is rated on a scale from
0 to 100, in which a score of 0 corresponds
to perfect integration and a score of 100
represents total segregation. A score of 0
corresponds to perfect integration, while a

29

score of 100 represents total segregation. An
index under 30 is considered low, between 30
and 60 is moderate, and above 60 is high.
With a 2010 White-Black dissimilarity index of
65, Buffalo qualifies as highly segregated by
national standards. The data indicates that in
order to achieve full integration among White
and Black residents, 65% of one subpopulation
or the other would have to move to another
tract within the City.
In addition to a White-Black index of 65, the
City has a White-Asian index of 51 and a
White-Hispanic index of 40. These numbers
indicate that some subpopulations are more
integrated with Whites than others. As Figure
3-6 demonstrates, the City has become
generally more integrated since 2000, with a
falling DI for Blacks and Hispanics, though the
DI rose for Asians.
To put Buffalo’s Black DI into perspective,
Figure 3-7 compares the City’s DI with the same
cities mentioned earlier in the AI. This data is
from 2000, the most recent such comparison
available. Among these cities, Buffalo’s Black
DI rate is very high, suggesting that only
Cleveland and Flint, with Black/White DIs of 79
and 77, respectively, are more segregated.

Though integration has
increased during the last
10 years, Buffalo’s Black
population remains
highly segregated from
its White population.

 Figure 3-5

2010

City of Buffalo Dissimilarity Indices, 2000 and 2010
o ulation

ha e of otal
o ulation

ith hite
o ulation

White

131,753

46%

-

Black

100,774

35%

65

American Indian*

2,009

1%

31

Asian

8,409

3%

51

Other

10,366

4%

47

7,999

3%

30

27,519

10%

40

o ulation

ha e of otal
o ulation

ith hite
o ulation

White

151,450

52%

-

Black

107,066

37%

70

American Indian*

2,010

1%

39

Asian

4,045

1%

47

Other

545

0%

44

5,456

2%

39

22,076

8%

50

Two or More Races

2000

Hispanic**

Two or More Races
Hispanic**

* In these cases, sample size is too small to reliably interpret the DI. Caution should be
exercised in interpreting results for subpopulations of fewer than 1,000.
** Hispanic ethnicity is counted independently of race.
Source: Census 2000 and 2010 SF: P1, Mullin & Lonergan Associates

Figure 3-6

Changes in Racial and Ethnic Integration, 2000-2010
Black

Asian

Hispanic

Population

DI

Population

DI

Population

DI

2000

107,066

70

4,045

47

22,076

50

2010

100,774

65

8,409

51

27,519

40

Source: Census 2000 & 2010 SF: P1; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates

Figure 3-7

Comparison in Black/White Dissimilarity Indices with Similar Cities, 2000
an

uni i ality

Bla
o ulation

hite
o ulation

otal
o ulation

i

i ila ity
n e

241,512

185,641

478,403

79

66,231

50,020

124,943

77

107,066

151,450

292,648

74

1

Cleveland

2

Flint

3

Buffalo

4

Pittsburgh

90,183

223,982

334,563

71

5

Toledo

73,134

212,658

313,619

67

6

Detroit

771,966

99,921

951,270

63

7

Syracuse

36,246

91,928

147,306

60

8

Niagara Falls

10,291

41,843

55,593

59

9

Rochester

82,267

97,395

219,773

58

10

Albany

26,042

58,459

95,658

57

11

Erie

14,420

81,605

103,717

52

12

Utica

7,548

46,389

60,651

49

Note: Index figure differs from M&L calculation for Buffalo due to methodology. No 2010 figures
were available from CensusScope.
Source: CensusSco e

30

 Race/Ethnicity and Income
Household income is one of several factors
used to determine a household’s eligibility for
a home mortgage loan. The median household
income (MHI) in Buffalo was $30,043 in 2010,
below the Erie County median of $47,372 and
the state median of $55,603.
Across racial and ethnic groups in Buffalo,
Whites had the highest MHI at $37,543. The
MHI for Asian households was $30,179. It was
substantially lower for Blacks and Hispanics, at
$23,245 and $15,899, respectively.

Figure 3-8

Median Household Income and
Poverty Rates by Race/Ethnicity, 2010
e ian ou ehol
n o e

o e ty
ate

Buffalo City

30,043

30%

Whites

$37,543

21%

Blacks

$23,245

37%

Asians

$30,179

41%

Hispanics

$15,899

52%

ie County

47,372

14%

55,603

14%

2010

e

o

Source: 2010 Census & 2006-2010 American
Community Survey (B19013)

31

As suggested by the lower median incomes
among these groups, minority residents in
Buffalo experienced poverty at greater rates
than White residents. The citywide poverty rate
across all races, 30%, was far higher than the
14% rate for Erie County. However, poverty
increased in both geographies between 2000
and 2010, from 27% to 30% in Buffalo and
from 12% to 14% across the county.

The 2010 median
income for Black
households in Buffalo
was roughly two-thirds
the median income for
White households, while
the median for Hispanic
households was less than
half.

 The distribution of household income by race
and ethnicity is comparable to the trends
described above, showing a disparity between
White and non-White households. The most
striking difference is the significantly higher
percentage of non-White households making
less than $25,000 in 2010.

Differences in MHI among the other income
categories are more moderate, but two
points are worth mentioning. Hispanics had
significantly fewer households than other racial
groups making above $50,000, while Whites
had the highest percentage of households
earning more than $75,000.

Figure 3-9

Household Income Distribution by Race and Ethnicity, 2010

All Households
Buffalo City
Erie County
White Households
Buffalo City
Erie County
Black Households
Buffalo City
Erie County
Asian Households
Buffalo City
Erie County
Hispanic Households
Buffalo City
Erie County

$50,000 to $75,000 and
$74,999
higher

Total

$0 to
$24,999

$25,000 to
$49,999

112,844
378,080

43%
27%

26%
25%

13%
18%

16%
30%

62,591
311,587

35%
22%

27%
25%

16%
19%

21%
33%

42,291
49,401

53%
50%

25%
25%

13%
13%

9%
11%

1,700
6,865

45%
31%

25%
21%

15%
12%

15%
36%

8,127
12,125

65%
54%

20%
22%

6%
10%

8%
14%

Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey (B19001)
70%
60%
50%
White Households

40%

Black Households

30%

Asian Households
Hispanic Households

20%
10%
0%
$0-$24,999

$25,000-$49,000 $50,000-$74,000 $75,000 & higher

32

 Residential Segregation
by Income
The Pew Research Center has developed a
metric to describe the degree to which high- and
low-income residents are spatially segregated
from one another within a metropolitan area.
The Residential Income Segregation Index
(RISI) is calculated by combining the share
of low-income residents who live in majority
low-income census tracts with the share of
high-income residents who live in high-income
census tracts, capturing the magnitude of
households that live in economically segregated
neighborhoods.

The score of 40 defines the region as less
economically segregated than many of the 30
metropolitan regions for which Pew published
RISI calculations. Unlike high-growth areas,
in which economic segregation is driven
in large part by the self-selection of upperincome families into expensive neighborhoods,
Buffalo’s economic segregation is driven by a
prevalence of neighborhoods in which poorer
families cluster, a function of the concentration
of affordable housing.

Nationwide, the Pew Center found that 28%
of lower-income households were located in
predominantly lower-income neighborhoods
in 2010, up from 23% in 1980, and that
18% of upper-income households lived in
predominantly upper-income neighborhoods,
compared to 9%. The Pew Center applied its
analysis to the nation’s 30 largest metropolitan
areas as of 2010. The Buffalo-Niagara Falls
metropolitan area ranked outside the scope
of Pew’s work, so their methodology was
replicated using the same data set and research
methods..

Figure 3-10

Pew’s analysis allows for a description of
neighborhood composition by income. Lowerincome households were defined as those
making less than $31,081, which is two-thirds
the 2010 MHI of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls
metropolitan area ($47,093), and upper-income
households were defined as those making at
least $94,186, which is double the metropolitan
MHI.
Lower-income neighborhoods were
those where at least 50% of households
made less than $31,081, and upper-income
neighborhoods are those where at least 50% of
households made at least $94,186.

33

According to 2010 American Community
Survey data, 53,086 of 162,034 lower-income
households across the Buffalo-Niagara
Falls region lived in majority lower-income
neighborhoods, a share of 33%. Only five
of the region’s 292 tracts were classified as
majority upper-income. Of the region’s 90,444
upper-income households, 6,784, or 8%, lived
in upper-income neighborhoods. Therefore,
the combined RISI score for the region in 2010
was 40.2, driven mostly by the concentration
of lower-income households in lower-income
areas.

Residential Income Segregation Comparisons
by Metropolitan Region, 2010
2010
San Antonio-New Braunfels
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
New York-Northern New Jersey
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield
Detroit-Warren-Livonia
Columbus
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach
Baltimore-Towson
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale
Kansas City
Cincinnati-Middletown
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor
National
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville
Buffalo- iaga a all
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford

63
61
60
57
55
54
53
51
51
49
48
48
47
47
47
46
46
43
41
41
40
40
38
38
38
36
35
34
29
28
25
22

Source: Fry, Richard and Taylor, Paul. “The Rise of
Residential Segregation by Income.” Pew Social and
Demographic Trends, Pew Research Center. Released
August 1, 2012. Local calculations by M&L.

 Disability and Income
As defined by the Census Bureau, a disability
is a long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional
condition that can make it difficult for a
person to carry out activities such as walking,
climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or
remembering. This condition can also impede
a person from being able to go outside the
home alone or to work.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination
based on physical, mental or emotional
handicap,
provided
“reasonable
accommodation” can be made. Reasonable
accommodation may include changes to
address the needs of disabled persons,
including adaptive structural (constructing
an entrance ramp) or administrative changes
(permitting the use of a service animal). Across
Buffalo, 16.9% of the total non-institutionalized
population five years and older reported a
disability in 2011.9
The most common type of disability among
persons ages 18 to 64 was ambulatory,
referring to difficulty moving from place to
place that makes it impossible or impractical
to walk as a means of transportation. Of
168,513 residents between ages 18 and 64,
16,029 (9.5%) reported this type of difficulty,
which often translates to a need for accessible
housing. Additionally, 30.4% of seniors age
65 and above (8,933 individuals) reported an
ambulatory disability. Of Buffalo residents
ages 18 to 64, 4.5% reported a sensory
disability such as vision or hearing. Just over
one in five seniors reported the same.
According to the National Organization on
Disabilities, a significant income gap exists
for persons with disabilities, given their lower
rate of employment. In Buffalo, persons with
disabilities were substantially more likely than

persons without disabilities to live in poverty. In
2011, 35% of residents with disabilities lived in
poverty, compared to 30% of persons without
disabilities.
Across Erie County, median
earnings for disabled persons age 16 and
older were $18,937 per person, compared to
$30,534 for those without disabilities.
Disabled persons and those living in poverty
were more prevalent in Erie County’s urban
core, a fact likely related to the concentration
of public and nonprofit human services and
transit available in Buffalo. Additionally, a large
proportion of the region’s affordable housing is
concentrated in Buffalo.
In a January 2013 Consolidated Plan open
house for people with disabilities, attendees
stated a need for City departments to be more
aware of obligations to accommodate disabled
individuals in programs and public meetings.
Additionally, attendees argued that developers
of subsidized housing that includes an
accessible component set rent rates too high
for many households with disabilities. One
solution suggested was for the City to prioritize
the needs of the disabled in its housing
rehabilitation program, as the weatherization
program does not adequately address the
types of needs this population has.

Buffalo residents
with disabilities are
substantially more
likely to live in poverty
than those without
disabilities.

34

 Familial Status and Income
The Census Bureau divides households into
family and non-family households. Family
households are married couple families with
or without children, single-parent families and
other families comprised of related persons.
Non-family households are either single
persons living alone, or two or more nonrelated persons living together.
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 protects
against gender discrimination in housing.
Protection for families with children was added
in the 1988 amendments. Except in limited
circumstances involving elderly housing and
owner-occupied buildings of one to four units,
it is unlawful to refuse to rent or sell to families
with children.

As a share of all households in Buffalo, femaleheaded households with children grew from
13% in 1990 to 14% in 2010. This household
type represents a smaller, but growing share
across all of Erie County (from 7% in 1990 to
8% in 2010). Although only 30% of Erie County
residents live in Buffalo, 54% of the county’s
single-female households with children reside
in the City.
The proportion of male-headed households
with children rose during the same years, from
1% in 1990 to 3% in 2010. By comparison,
married-couple family households with children
declined from 15% to 10% of all households in
Buffalo between 1990 and 2010.

Figure 3-11

Trends in Household Type, City of Buffalo, 1990-2010
60%

1990
2000

50%

2010

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Married w/
Children

35

Married w/o
Children

Female HHs w/
Children

Female HHs
w/o Children

Male HHs w/
Children

Male HHs w/o
Children

Non-family &
Single-person
HHs

 In terms of raw numbers, the decrease in
married-couple families in Buffalo appears
even more extreme. The number of marriedcouple families with children fell from 20,185
in 1990 to 10,717 in 2010. The number of
married-couple families without children
has also decreased since 1990, but this
demographic group seems to be stabilizing,
as its proportion of the population remained
essentially the same between 2000 and 2010.
Non-family households increased between
1990 and 2010, reflecting a national trend of
expansion in this category.

Of all household types, females with children
were the most likely to experience poverty. In
2011, 51.3% of such households were below
the poverty line, compared to only 17.1% of
married couples with children. Female-headed
households with children represented 61% of
all Buffalo families under the poverty line.

Six in every 10 Buffalo
families under the
poverty line are femaleheaded households with
children.

Figure 3-12

Household Type and Presence of Children 1990-2010
1990

2010

% Change

135,595

112,844

-17%

78,865

58,632

-26%

46,838

27,660

-41%

With own children under
18 years

20,185

10,717

-47%

No own children under 18
years

26,653

16,943

-36%

4,863

5,788

19%

With own children under
18 years

1,867

2,940

57%

No own children under 18
years

2,996

2,848

-5%

27,164

25,184

-7%

With own children under
18 years

16,941

15,830

-7%

No own children under 18
years

10,223

9,354

-9%

56,730

54,212

-4%

otal ou ehol
a ily ou ehol
otal
a ie Cou le
a ilie

otal
ale ou ehol e
no a tne

otal
e ale ou ehol e
no a tne

on-fa ily

Source: Census 2000 (SF 3 P10); 2010 American Community Survey (B11001,
B11003); with children is defined as "own children"

36

 Ancestry and Income
It is illegal to refuse the right to housing based
on place of birth or ancestry. In 2010, 7% of
all Buffalo residents were foreign-born. By
way of origin, the largest group were Asians,
comprising 32% of the entire foreign-born
population. Europeans represented 22% of
foreign-born residents, followed by foreignborn Hispanics at 21%. However, this statistic
does not fully illustrate population trends for
Buffalo’s Hispanic population, which also
includes 5,658 native-born Puerto Ricans.
Buffalo’s foreign-born population was more
likely to experience poverty than its nativeborn population. According to 2006-2010 ACS
estimates, 37% of the foreign-born population
for which poverty status is determined fell
below the poverty line, compared to 29% of the
native-born population. Notably, 52% of the
native-population born offshore experienced
poverty – Puerto Ricans composed 80% of this
group.

Figure 3-13

Persons with limited English proficiency (LEP)
are defined by the federal government as those
with a limited ability to read, write, speak or
understand English. To identify the number of
persons with LEP, the ACS reports data on the
non-English language spoken at home for the
population five years and older. In 2010, the
Census Bureau reported that 34,108 persons
across Buffalo (14%) spoke at least one
language other than English. Of these, 13,599
(40%) spoke English less than “very well.” This
LEP subpopulation constituted 6% of the City’s
total population.
To ensure compliance with Title VI obligations,
HUD recommends that a grantee community
provide translation of its vital documents into
any language with more than 1,000 LEP
speakers, or whose LEP speakers represent at
least 1% of the total population to be served.
In Buffalo, Spanish was the only language to
reach this threshold. Additionally, there were
more than 1,200 limited-English residents
who spoke an African language. However, no
specific African language by itself exceeded
HUD’s thresholds.

Limited English Proficiency
Language Groups, 2010
anguage

ou

Spanish
Arabic
Vietnamese

u

e of
ea e

e entage of
otal
o ulation

5,721
823
626

2%
0%
0%

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10
Estimates (B16001)

37

There is a sufficient
number of limitedEnglish speakers in
Buffalo to warrant
further analysis of
their access to public
programs and services.

 Employment and
Protected Class Status
In 2010, the latest year for which comprehensive
data was available, unemployment rates in
Buffalo were significantly higher than state
and national levels at 12%. State and national
unemployment levels were at 8% and 9%,
respectively. Erie County, on the other hand,
was lower than both state and national levels
at 8%, revealing clear economic disparities
between the City and its suburban counterparts.

in unemployment rates between Blacks
and Hispanics versus Whites and Asians is
significant. Higher unemployment, whether
temporary or permanent, significantly limits
the resources available to meet housing costs.
In Buffalo, this is a problem more commonly
experienced by those who are Black or
Hispanic.

In terms of unemployment rates by racial/ ethnic
group, Blacks and Hispanics experienced
much higher unemployment rates at 18% for
each group. Unemployment rates for Whites
and Asians closely reflects national trends
at 9%. This nine percentage point difference

Blacks and Hispanics were
substantially more likely
than Whites and Asians to
be unemployed in 2010,
both in Buffalo and across
the nation.

Figure 3-14

Civilian Labor Force
and Protected Class Status, 2010
Civilian Labor
Force
Total

United States
Total

%

155,866,553
Unemployed

Male

14,018,456

Female
Unemployed
White

7,820,706

9%

Unemployed

7,939,370

Asian

2,491,093

7%

Hispanic
Unemployed

479,439

14%

371,791
411,341
168,874
51,404
156,846

35,379
20,242
15,137

8%

23,773
8,821
777

6%

2,070

12%

8,374

14%

7,058

11%

6,430

9%

41,448
17%

7,640

18%

2,949
7%

262

14%

1,557

14,762
10%

15,432

73,152

10,780
7%

%

63,341
7%

51,138
12%

Total

60,876
8%

393,583
6%

Buffalo
124,217

228,626
8%

1,574,074
10%

%

239,491
9%

731,962
6%

22,457,109
2,157,490

451,290

1,423,818

7,504,796
Unemployed

8%

6,653,172

17,830,614
Unemployed

823,081

Total
468,117

4,785,052
8%

116,527,630

Black

%

5,113,854
10%

73,918,337
6,197,750

Total

Erie County

9,898,906

81,948,216
Unemployed

New York

9%

8,483
18%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County: 2006-10 American Community Survey (C23001, C23002A,
C23002B, C23002D, C23002I). State: Same tables, 2008-10 ACS.

38

 Housing Inventory
The overall number of housing units across
Buffalo and Erie County remained substantially
the same between 2000 and 2010, reflecting
a stock that has not downsized as quickly
as population. The increase in total units
across Erie County reflects a loss within
Buffalo counterbalanced by a gain outside of
the City. These statistics translate to modest
growth in housing units in the suburbs and a
decrease in housing units within the City, due
in part to a demolition program that removes

vacant, dilapidated properties from the
inventory. Stakeholders interviewed during
the development of the AI suggested that
new construction in the more affluent suburbs
comes at the expense of vacancy in the City,
as families leave older homes empty in favor of
larger, more modern structures. If it is true that
a large percentage of suburban growth outside
Buffalo can be attributed to moves out of the
center city, the region is certainly not alone in
this phenomenon.

Figure 3-15

Trends in Total Housing Units, 2000-2010
2000

2010

Change

Buffalo City

145,574

139,174

-4%

Erie County outside Buffalo

270,294

281,258

4%

Erie County

415,868

420,432

1%

Source:

Census S

Census B

While the total number of
housing units in Buffalo
has decreased since 2000,
surrounding communities
have added to their
housing inventories.

39

 Figure 3-16

Housing Units by Structure Type, 2010
ingle- a ily

otal
nit

h ee- lu a ily

o- a ily
%

%

%

Buffalo City

139,174

50,269

36%

55,358

40%

33,220

24%

Suburbs

281,258

203,378

72%

29,371

10%

42,796

15%

Erie County

420,432

253,647

60%

84,729

20%

76,016

18%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS (B25024)

In 2010, single-family units comprised only
36% of the housing stock in Buffalo, while 72%
of all units in the remainder of Erie County were
single-family. Differences in structure type
follow patterns of urban density, with a higher
prevalence of multi-family structures located
in the City than in suburban areas within Erie
County.

Multi-family housing
structures are far more
common in Buffalo than
other areas of Erie County,
where they represent only
26% of the housing stock.
By contrast, 64% of stock in
Buffalo is multi-family.

Housing vacancies within the City have
remained steadily high at 16% of total inventory
since 2000. The number of vacant units has
dropped, but the percentage of vacancies
has remained unchanged due to a concurrent
decrease in the total number of homes in the
City.
Of all vacancies across Buffalo in 2010, 20%
were for rent and 5% were for sale, while
the vast majority, 64%, were vacant for what
the Census classifies as “other” reasons,
commonly including abandonment.

Figure 3-17

Buffalo Housing Vacancy Rates, 2000 and 2010
a ant

nit

ea

otal
nit

2000

145,574

22,854

16%

2010

133,444

20,908

16%

Source:

%

Census S

Of the 20,908 vacant
housing units in Buffalo in
2010, about two-thirds were
empty for reasons other
than rental, sale or seasonal
use, suggesting a high rate
of residential property
abandonment.

40

 Figure 3-18

Housing Units by Tenure and Structure Type, 2010
u ie
nit
Buffalo City
Suburbs
Erie County

112,844
265,236
378,080

ne otal
48,827
201,411
250,238

SingleFamily
33,286
188,511
221,797

u ie
MultiFamily
15,541
12,900
28,441

% MultiFamily
32%
6%
11%

otal
64,017
63,825
127,842

ente -

u ie

SingleFamily
11,873
12,222
24,095

MultiFamily
52,144
51,603
103,747

% MultiFamily
81%
81%
81%

% ente u ie
ultia ily

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-10 ACS (B25032)

In 2010, the Census Bureau estimated
that Buffalo’s occupied housing inventory
of 112,844 was 43.3% owner-occupied,
compared to 75.9% across the remainder of
Erie County. The City contained about 30% of
all occupied homes in the county and half of all
renter-occupied homes.
To isolate apartment units from condominium
units that are owner-occupied and located
within multi-family structures, Figure 3-21
examines the tenure of units by structure type.
Of the City’s total owner-occupied housing
stock, 8,887 units (31.8%) were in multi-family
structures. By comparison, there were many
more multi-family units within the rental stock.
Of the 64,017 rental units, 52,144 (81.5%) were
in multi-family structures. The concentration of
multi-family rental units in areas of dense urban
character is typical of development patterns
nationwide.

41

The right-most column of Figure 3-21
represents the proportion of each community’s
total occupied housing that consists of renteroccupied multi-family units. In Buffalo, such
units account for 46.2% of all occupied homes.

Owner-occupied units in
multi-family buildings,
such as condominiums,
account for 22.9% of
all multi-family stock
in Buffalo, while the
remaining 77.1% of
multi-unit buildings
contain apartments.

46%
19%
27%

 Home Ownership and
Protected Class Status
The value in home ownership lies in the
accumulation of wealth as the owner’s share
of equity increases with the property’s value.
Paying a monthly mortgage instead of rent
is an investment in an asset that is likely to
appreciate.

As previously noted, the median income for
Black and Hispanic households in Buffalo is
dramatically lower than the median for Whites.
This is one among several factors that contribute
to the generally lower rates of home ownership
among minority families.

Historically, minorities tend to have lower
home ownership rates than Whites. This trend
also holds true in Buffalo where Whites had a
home ownership rate of 52%. By comparison,
minority home ownership rates were 34% for
Blacks, 22% for Asians and 23% for Hispanics.

In Buffalo, Black and
Hispanic households are
less likely to own homes
than White and Asian
households.

Figure 3-19

Housing Tenure by Race and Ethnicity, 2010
White

Black

Asian

Hispanic

HHs

% Owners

HHs

% Owners

HHs

% Owners

HHs

% Owners

62,591

52%

42,291

34%

1,700

22%

8,127

23%

Source: 2006-10 American Community Survey (B25003A, B25003B, B25003D, B25003I)

42

 Household Size and
Protected Class Status
Larger families may be at risk for housing
discrimination on the basis of race and the
presence of children (familial status). A larger
household, whether or not children are present,
can raise fair housing concerns. If there are
policies or programs that restrict the number
of persons that can live together in a single
housing unit, and members of the protected
classes need more bedrooms to accommodate
their larger household, there is a fair housing
concern because the restriction on the size
of the unit will have a negative impact on
members of the protected classes.

comparison, 49% of Asian households and
35% of Black households were considered
to be large. A smaller proportion of Hispanic
households, 23%, had three or more persons.

Figure 3-20

Family Size by Race and Ethnicity, 2010
e ent of a ilie
ith
h ee o o e e on
Buffalo City

In Buffalo, racial minorities were more likely
than Whites to live in households with three
or more people. In 2010, 24% of White
households had three or more people. By

White

24%

Black

35%

Asian

49%

Hispanic

23%

otal

30%

Source: Census

S

Figure 3-21

Tenure of Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2010
ente u ie
ou ing to
units

ne u ie
ou ing to
%

units

%
43%

64,017

57%

48,827

0-1 bedroom

16,278

25%

1,235

3%

2 bedrooms

23,225

36%

8,306

17%

24,514

38%

39,286

80%

otal

3o

oe e

oo

Source: 2006-10 American Community Survey (B25042)

Only 36% of rental units
in the City have three or
more bedrooms, compared
81% of owner units.

43

To adequately house larger families, a sufficient
supply of larger dwelling units consisting of
three or more bedrooms is necessary. In the
City, there are fewer options to rent a unit to
accommodate large families. Of the 64,017
rental units in 2010, only 36% had three or
more bedrooms, compared to 81% of the
owner housing stock.

 Housing Costs
Increasing housing costs are not a direct form
of housing discrimination. However, a lack
of affordable housing does constrain housing
choice. Residents may be limited to a smaller
selection of neighborhoods because of a lack
of affordable housing in those areas.

Between 2000 and 2010,
adjusted median housing
value fell 13% in Buffalo,
while household income
fell 3% and median rent
climbed 8%.

Between 2000 and 2010, median housing
value across the City of Buffalo (adjusted for
inflation to 2010 dollars using BLS indices)
decreased 13%, while real median income
fell 3% in real dollars. At the same time, the
median gross rent increased 8%. A decrease
in home values relative to income is a positive
trend for families wishing to purchase a home,
though it has negative implications for the
equity of families already in them. Because
median rents outpaced income gains, renting
in Buffalo became relatively less affordable, on
the whole.

Figure 3-22

Changes in Housing Value, Rent and Income, 2000 to 2010
e ian

ou ing
alue
in 2010

e ian

o
ent
in 2010

e ian
ou ehol
n o e in 2010

2000

75,091

598

31,070

2010
Change

65,700

646

30,043

-13%

8%

-3%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 (SF3-H76, H63, P53),
2006-10 American Community Survey (B25077, B25064, B19013);
Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.

44

 map 3-6

Median Gross Rent
by Census Tract, 2010
Source: 2011 ACS (B25064)

Census Tracts

Median gross rent
Below $500
$501 to $600
$601 to $700
$701 to $800
More than $800

±

 In Erie County, a minimum-wage worker
earns an hourly wage of $7.25. In order to
afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment,
a minimum-wage earner must work 76 hours
per week, 52 weeks per year. The NLIHC
estimates that 53% of Erie County renters are
currently unable to afford the two-bedroom
FMR. Monthly Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) payments for an individual are $698
in Erie County and across New York. If SSI
represents an individual’s sole source of
income, $209 in monthly rent is affordable,
while the local FMR for a one-bedroom is
$812.

To further analyze renter affordability, Figure
3-27 reviews 2010 estimates for household
income among renters. According to this data,
41% of the City’s renter households had a
median income below $15,000. Using 30%
of median income as an indicator of housing
affordability, renters with a median income
of $15,000 could afford a maximum of $375
per month in rent and other housing costs.
However, rentals priced below $500 per
month comprise only 25% of the City’s rental
stock, indicating that even given the regional
concentration of lower-priced living spaces
within the City of Buffalo, a large number of
City households are priced out of the market.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition
provides annual information on the Fair Market
Rent (FMR) and affordability of rental housing
in counties and cities in the U.S. for 2012.
In Erie County, the FMR for a two-bedroom
apartment is $719. In order to afford this level
of rent and utilities without paying more than
30% of income on housing, a household must
earn $2,397 monthly or $28,760 annually.
Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks
per year, this level of income translates into a
Housing Wage of $14 per hour.

Minimum-wage, singleincome households and
those depending on SSI
payments cannot afford an
apartment renting at the
fair market rate in Erie
County.

Figure 3-23

Income by Tenure, 2010
n o e

ou

ente

u ie

ne %

Less than 5,000

7,733

5,000 to 9,999

12%

u ie
%

1,261

3%

10,471

16%

1,712

4%

10,000 to 14,999

7,985

13%

2,561

6%

15,000 to 19,999

6,143

10%

2,517

5%

20,000 to 24,999

5,434

9%

3,127

7%

25,000 to 34,999

8,455

13%

6,098

13%

35,000 to 49,999

7,464

12%

7,594

17%

50,000 to 74,999

6,217

10%

9,939

22%

75,000 to 99,999

2,423

4%

6,106

13%

100,000 to 149,999

1,167

2%

5,026

11%

525

1%

2,886

6%

63,492

100%

45,941

100%

150,000 or more
otal
Source: 2006-2010 ACS (B25118)

46

 One method used to determine the inherent
affordability of a housing market is to calculate
the percentage of homes that could be purchased
by households at the median income level. It is
possible also to determine the affordability of the
housing market for each racial or ethnic group
in the County. To determine affordability, the
following assumptions were made:
•
•
•

•
•

Figure 3-28 details the estimated maximum
affordable sales prices and monthly PITI
payments for Whites, Blacks, Asians and
Hispanics in Buffalo.
The 2010 regional median sales price for
single-family homes was $116,500. Within the
City of Buffalo, the median household income
in 2010 was $30,043, which translates to a
maximum affordable home purchase price
of $46,330. Within the MSA, the average
household median income was $47,093,
which translates to a maximum affordable
home purchase price of $124,125.

The mortgage was a 30-year fixed rate
loan at a 4.0% interest rate,
The buyer made a 10% down payment on
the sales price,
Principal, interest, taxes and insurance
(PITI) combined with other consumer debt
equaled no more than 35% of gross
monthly income, a threshold of financial
health commonly used by banks,
Property taxes were levied at a combined
median tax rate of 3%, and
Additional consumer debt
(credit cards, car payment, etc.) averaged
$500 per month.

Sales options were far more limited for Blacks
and Hispanics. The maximum affordable
purchase price for Blacks was only 33%
of the citywide average, while the median
household income for Hispanics was so low
that homeownership is nearly impossible.
Asians fared better than Blacks and Hispanics
with a maximum affordable purchase price of
$46,969.

Figure 3-24

Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Race/Ethnicity, 2010
Monthly Mortgage Payment

Buffalo City

Median
Household
Income

Mortgage
Principal &
Interest

Real Estate
Taxes

Homeowner's
Insurance & PMI

Total Debt
Service*

Maximum
Affordable
Purchase
Price

$30,043

$197

$99

$80

$876

$46,330

Whites

$37,543

$343

$172

$80

$1,095

$80,560

Blacks

$23,245

$65

$33

$80

$678

$15,330

Asians

$30,179

$200

$100

$80

$880

$46,965

$15,899

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Hispanics

2010 Median Sales Price for Single-Family Home in Buffalo-Niagara MLS: $116,500
* Includes PITI and $500 in assumed average monthly consumer debt service
Sources: 2006-10 American Community Survey (B19013, B19013A, B19013B, B19013D, B19013I); Buffalo
Assessment & Taxation Department; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.

Generally speaking, home
ownership in Buffalo is the
most unaffordable to Black
and Hispanic households as a
function of the lower median
household incomes among
these groups.

47

 Foreclosure
In recent years, soaring foreclosure rates across
the country have threatened the viability of
neighborhoods and the ability of families to maintain
housing. The private financing section of the AI
includes more details on the lending environment,
which indicates that minority households receive
a greater share of loans with higher interest
rates, which are typically associated with a higher
foreclosure risk.
Aside from its most direct consequences of
displacing families and depleting the local tax base,
concentrated foreclosure results in neighborhood
deterioration. As many properties remain in the
control of financial institutions for longer periods
of time, structures are abandoned and streets
become blighted, devaluing nearby property and
contributing to nuisance activity.
These problems present an opportunity to
incorporate fair housing incentives and affirmative
marketing conditions in the disposition of property.
While policy emphasis is often placed on the
immediate problem of getting abandoned property
efficiently back into an owner’s hands and onto the
tax rolls, the volume of foreclosure vacancies and
the extent to which they disproportionately affect
racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
calls for attention to fair housing considerations in
their disposition.
HUD generates foreclosure risk scores by census
tract as part of its Neighborhood Stabilization
Program. Within the City, census tracts bordering
either side of Genesee Street were at the highest
risk of foreclosure, according to NSP3 estimates.
Many of those tracts had estimated double-digit
rates of foreclosure with the highest rate of 15%
in Census Tract 36. Other areas of the City were
also predicted to have higher levels of foreclosure
including select census tracts in the east and
northwest areas of the City.

48

 map 3-7

HUD NSP3 Foreclosure Risk Score
by Census Tract

Census Tracts
Estimated Rate
Less than 2%
2% to 5%
5% to 7%
7% to 10%
10% to 15%

49

±

 4

records of
housing
discrimination

This section analyzes the existence of fair
housing complaints or compliance reviews
where a charge of a finding of discrimination has
been made. It will also review the existence of
any fair housing discrimination suits filed by the
United States Department of Justice or private
plaintiffs in addition to the identification of other
fair housing concerns or problems.
Buffalo citizens can receive fair housing
services from a variety of agencies, such as
Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME),
Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Neighborhood
Legal Services or the City’s Fair Housing
Officer). These groups provide education and
outreach, sponsor community events, process
fair housing complaints and investigate
complaints through testing, and work to
promote a mutual understanding of diversity
among residents.

Existence of Fair
Housing Complaints
A lack of filed complaints does not necessarily
indicate that a problem does not exist. Some
persons may not file complaints because they
are unaware of how to file a complaint or
where to go to file a complaint. Discriminatory
practices can be subtle and may not be
detected by someone who does not have
the benefit of comparing his treatment with
that of another home seeker. Other times,
persons may be aware that they are being
discriminated against, but they may not be
aware that the discrimination is against the law
and that there are legal remedies to address

the discrimination. Also, households may be
more interested in achieving their first priority of
finding decent housing and may prefer to avoid
going through the process of filing a complaint
and following through with it. According to the
Urban Institute, 83% of those who experience
housing discrimination do not report it because
they feel nothing will be done. Therefore,
education, information, and referral regarding
fair housing issues remain critical to equip
persons with the ability to reduce impediments.
The introductory section of the AI presents
differences between federal, state and local
fair housing laws and the classes they protect.
These differences constitute why a person
might file a complaint with one agency instead
of another. Federal law protects on the basis of
race, color, religion/creed, national origin, sex,
disability and familial status. State law covers
those areas and adds sexual orientation,
military status, age and marital status. City
law covers all of the aforementioned and adds
gender identity/expression and source of
income. Therefore, a person alleging sourceof-income discrimination could seek recourse
only at the City level. Nonprofit fair housing
agencies assist clients to file complaints at the
most appropriate level.

a. u.s. department of housing
and urban development

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity (FHEO) at HUD receives
complaints from persons regarding alleged
violations of the federal Fair Housing Act.
Fair housing complaints originating in
Buffalo were obtained and analyzed for the
four-year period of January 2009 through
December 2012. In total, HUD reported
receipt of 72 complaints originating in the
City during this period, with 26 filed in
2009, 23 filed in 2010, 11 filed in 2011 and
12 filed in 2012.

50

 Complainants may list multiple bases
of complaint; however, race was the
predominant basis, factoring into 33 of
the 72 HUD cases (46%). Following that,
familial status was cited in 25 cases (35%),
and disability factored into 24 cases (33%).
Figure 4-1 includes a complete breakdown
on basis by percentage of all cases.

Of the 72 housing
discrimination complaints
filed with HUD since
2009 related to Buffalo
properties, about half were
on the basis of race or color.

As Figure 4-2 on the following page
demonstrates, most of the housing
discrimination cases in Buffalo reported to
HUD were related to rental transactions.
About half of the cases (34) included
more than one allegation, so the sum of
all allegations made exceeds the total
number of cases. One-third of all cases
involved alleged refusal to rent or negotiate
to rent, and (with some overlap), 31% of
cases reported discrimination in the terms,
conditions, or privileges relating to rental.
The disability-related problem of failure
to make reasonable accommodation was
reported to HUD in only three cases.

The evident majority of
alleged discrimination
reported to HUD involved
rental transactions,
facilities, conditions or
services.

Figure 4-1

Basis for Complaint in HUD Cases, 2009-2012
Religion
Retaliation
Color
National Origin
Sex
Disability
Familial Status
Race
0%

51

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

 Figure 4-2

Issues Cited in HUD Discrimination Complaints, 2009-2012
ue
Discriminatory refusal to rent/negotiate for rental

Cite
% of otal
26
36%

Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges
relating to rental

22

31%

Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or
services and facilities

16

22%

Discriminatory acts under Section 818
(coercion, etc.)

14

19%

Other discriminatory acts

11

15%

Otherwise deny or make housing unavailable
Discriminatory advertising, statements and

10

14%

12

17%

Failure to make reasonable accommodation

5

7%

False denial or representation of availability rental

3

4%

Discriminatory refusal to sell

2

3%

Discriminatory financing (includes real estate
transactions)

1

1%

Discrimination in terms and conditions of
membership

1

1%

Source: HUD New York FHEO Center

As of December 2012, eight of the Buffalo
cases reported to HUD were open for
investigation. Of the 64 cases that were closed,
10 (16%) resulted in a successful conciliation
or settlement. A complaint is considered
conciliated when all of the parties to the
complaint enter into a conciliation agreement
with HUD. Such agreements include benefits
for the complainant, and affirmative action on
the part of the respondent, such as civil rights
training. HUD has the authority to monitor
and enforce these agreements. These cases
involved a variety of issues and allegations
with no notable pattern.
Of the 64 closed cases, 37 (58%) were found to
be without probable cause. This occurs when
the preponderance of evidence obtained during
the course of the investigation is insufficient to
substantiate the charge of discrimination.

not always mean that housing discrimination
has not occurred. Withdrawn complaints can
be due to an uncooperative complainant,
a complainant who cannot be located,
a complainant who changed her mind,
experienced intimidation, decided against
the trouble of following through, chose to
seek other housing without delay, or other
reasons.
Two cases from 2009 were found to be with
cause. In one case, a landlord rescinded his
agreement to rent to a tenant upon learning
of the tenant’s disability, and in the other, a
landlord advertised a preference for a single
renter and then informed a tester from HOME
that the apartment “would not be conducive
to a family.” HUD issued a charge in the
latter case.

Another six cases (9%) were administratively
closed, due to complaint withdrawal before
or after resolution (two cases each), lack of
jurisdiction (one case) or inability to locate
the complainant (one case). Caution should
be used when interpreting complaints that are
administratively closed. This resolution does

52

 Seven cases involved FHAP consent
orders, meaning that those involved
negotiated a settlement (independently
or through an appointed judge) that was
submitted to investigators as a voluntary
agreement to resolve the case. HUD
provided details for six of these cases:
1. A complainant alleged that she
contacted a landlord by phone
regarding the rental of a house and
was given an appointment to view it,
but when the landlord saw that she
was Black, he refused to show her the
house or rent to her.
2. A White and a Black tester were
allegedly treated differently by a
landlord, who made and kept an
appointment with the White tester to
see a property, but told the Black tester
she would receive a call back with a
specific time, then did not call.
3. A complainant claimed that a landlord
advertised with a preference for college
students, then denied the complainant
a rental unit based on familial status.
4. A rental application violated the law
by asking the dates of birth of the
applicant and all other occupants,
as well as requiring disclosure of the
relationship of other occupants to the
applicant.
5. A landlord allegedly denied housing
based on familial status.
6. A
complainant
claimed
that
she had requested reasonable
accommodations that her landlord
refused to honor, culminating in her
receiving lease violation notices that
led to the termination of her tenancy.
Finally, two cases were dismissed at the
judicial level.

53

B. New York state

division of human rights
Housing
discrimination
complaints
constitute six percent of all cases handled
by the New York State Division of Human
Rights, compared to employment cases
(88%) and public accommodation cases
(3%). The Division enforces the state’s
Human Rights Law, the first of its kind in
any state, which prohibits discrimination
based on age, sexual orientation, marital
status and military status, in addition to
classes protected by federal law. The
Division has a regional office in Buffalo.
Complaints may be filed in person or
by mailing in a form. Complainants who
contact the Division via phone or online are
directed to fill out and mail in the complaint
form.
The Division submitted data for AI review
on 110 closed housing discrimination
cases originating in Buffalo between
January 2009 and December 2012. The
frequency of cases declined across those
four years from 44 in 2009 to 28 in 2010, 20
in 2011 and 18 in 2012. Of all persons and
entities filing cases, HOME was the most
commonly represented, having filed 24 of
the 110 total cases (21.8%).
Across all complaints received by the
Division during the years under study,
race/color was the most common basis for
complaint, factoring into 48 cases (43.6%).
This was followed by disability, cited in 35
cases (31.8%) and familial status, cited in
31 complaints (28.2%). Less commonly an
issue were sex, national origin, retaliation,
age, religion/creed and sexual orientation.
The latter is a protection provided by state,
but not federal law. The fact that it was cited
only twice in complaints over the course of
four years is more likely an indication that
awareness of the protection is low than it is
an indication that discrimination does not

 Figure 4-3

Basis for Complaint in State Cases, 2009-2012
Sexual Orientation
Religion/Creed
Age
Retaliation
National Origin
Sex
Familial Status
Disabilityy
Race/Color
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

c. cITY OF BUFFALO

FAIR HOUSING OFFICER

Per Chapter 154 of the Code of the City
of Buffalo, the Fair Housing Ordinance,
the City’s mayor designates a fair housing
officer to receive, investigate and/or refer
housing discrimination complaints to a
qualified fair housing enforcement agency.
Any person or organization, whether or
not an aggrieved party, may file a written
complaint within one year from the date of
alleged discrimination.
WIthin 30 days of receiving a complaint,
the fair housing officer notifies the accused
party and requests a written response to
be submitted within 20 days. At this point,
the fair housing officer conducts a prompt
investigation, within 120 days, to determine
whether there is probable cause to
establish discriminatory conduct. Upon the
fair housing officer’s certification that there
has been an affirmative finding of probable
cause of discriminatory practice, the officer
may request the Corporation Counsel to
file an action against the accused party in
court to seek the imposition of penalties,
such as a fine, revocation or suspension

The most common
discrimination type cited
at both the federal and
state levels for Buffalo
cases was race/color,
followed by disability and
familial status.

54

 of any City licenses or permits necessary
to the operation of the housing in question,
or other relief. Alternately, the officer
may request that a qualified fair housing
enforcement agency commence a civil
action or proceeding for injunctive relief,
damages and other appropriate relief in
law or equity against a person found to be
discriminating unlawfully.
An interview with the City’s fair housing
officer conducted in January 2013
indicated that the position’s responsibilities
extend to a wide variety of housing-related
issues, among which fair housing is only
one. The fair housing officer receives
housing-related inquiries from the City’s
311 system, provides education and
outreach and monitors compliance with
minority/women
business
enterprise
requirements. Therefore, handling housing
discrimination represents only a part of the
daily activities. Most of the housing issues
are not directly related to fair housing, but
more commonly deal with landlord-tenant
relations. The officer estimated that 80%
of calls are related to evictions. When fair
housing issues surface, the officer refers
them to HOME for investigation. HOME
is a qualified, certified agency, and the
ordinance leaves the decision to investigate
internally or refer cases to such agencies at
the officer’s discretion.
While data on complaints received by the
City was not available for inclusion in the
AI, the fair housing officer reported that
the majority of cases relate to alleged
violations of the City’s protection against
discrimination on the basis of a person’s
source of income.
This protection is

55

available at the local, but not state or
federal levels. According to the officer,
most landlords seem unaware of the local
law until they are found to be in violation.
Once notified, many will agree to participate
in the Section 8 voucher program as
required -- but they commonly exploit
a loophole. Voucher programs require
units to pass a housing quality standards
(HQS) inspection. If a unit doesn’t pass
HQS, a voucher household may not move
in. There is no mechanism by which to
force landlords to make improvements to
meet HQS, so landlords can effectively
exclude voucher holders by failing HQS
inspections. According to the fair housing
officer, this is a problem for many voucher
households, who have a limited amount
of time to move into a suitable unit before
their voucher expires.

A commonly exploited
loophole allows landlords to
avoid voucher households by
not meeting HUD housing
quality standards set by the
Housing Choice voucher
program.

 d. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
MADE EQUAL

HOME is a HUD-certified counseling agency
that participates in HUD’s Fair Housing
Initiatives Program (FHIP) to help people
identify government agencies that handle
complaints of housing discrimination. In
addition to investigating complaints referred
by the City of Buffalo and other agencies,
along with those it receives directly, HOME
is responsible for maintaining the City’s fair
housing database, though they declined to
make this data available for review in the
AI.
During an interview, HOME’s executive
director reported that the agency collected
190 discrimination reports across the
metropolitan area within the last year. In
order of frequency, the most common
bases for complaint were familial status,
source of income, race and disability.
About three-quarters of all discrimination
complaints HOME receives originate in
Buffalo.
HOME’s director suggested
that in many cases, source of income
discrimination is likely a surrogate for
racial discrimination, as Buffalo’s voucher
holders are predominantly non-White.
As part of its activities as a FHIP participant,
HOME has conducted fair housing testing in

the region. Testing is commonly recognized as
an effective, if demanding, method of detecting
unfair treatment in the housing market. HOME
has undertaken systemic discrimination testing
as well as tests of features in structures
required by law to be accessible to persons
with disabilities. The agency must report the
results of such tests to HUD, though the results
were not made available for review in the AI.

City Involvement in Fair
Housing Cases
The City of Buffalo is not currently subject to
or operating under any desegregation orders
or unlawful segregation orders, nor has it been
a party to such litigation in the past five years.
The City was a party to the landmark Comer
housing discrimination case, since resolved,
which is more fully explained in the Public
Housing section of the AI.

The inability to collect
discrimination test results
and complaints data from
HOME suggests that
the City’s subrecipient
agreement with the
agency does not require
it to routinely submit this
data to the City. However,
this data should factor into
the City’s understanding of
current conditions and its
formulation of policy.

56

 5

review of
public sector
policies

The analysis of impediments is a review of
impediments to fair housing choice in the
public and private sector. Impediments to fair
housing choice are any actions, omissions, or
decisions taken because of race, color, religion,
sex, disability, familial status or national origin
that restrict housing choices or the availability
of housing choices, or any actions, omissions
or decisions that have the effect of restricting
housing choices or the availability of housing
choices on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
Policies, practices or procedures that appear
neutral on their face but which operate to deny
or adversely affect the provision of housing
to persons of a particular race, color, religion,
sex, disability, familial status, or national
origin may constitute such impediments. This
section evaluates public policies in the City
to determine opportunities for furthering the
expansion of fair housing choice.

The City of Buffalo receives federal entitlement
funds from HUD in the form of:
• 

Community  Development  Block  Grant 
(CDBG): The primary objective of this
program is to develop viable urban
communities by providing decent housing,
a suitable living environment, and economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low
and moderate income levels. Funds can be
used for a wide array of activities, including:
housing rehabilitation, homeownership
assistance, lead-based paint detection
and removal, construction or rehabilitation
of public facilities and infrastructure,
removal of architectural barriers, public
services, rehabilitation of commercial or
industrial buildings, and loans or grants to
businesses.

• 

HOME 
Investment 
Partnerships 
Program  (HOME): The HOME program
provides federal funds for the development
and rehabilitation of affordable rental and
ownership housing for low and moderate
income households. HOME funds can be
used for activities that promote affordable
rental housing and homeownership by
low and moderate income households,
including reconstruction, moderate or
substantial
rehabilitation,
homebuyer
assistance, and tenant-based rental
assistance.

• 

Emergency  Solutions  Grant  (ESG):
The ESG program provides federal funds
to provide homeless persons with basic
shelter and essential supportive services.
The funds can also be used for short-term
homeless prevention assistance.

• 

Housing  Opportunities  for  Persons 
with  AIDS  (HOPWA): These funds may
be used for a wide range of services,
including the acquisition, rehabilitation, or
new construction of housing units; facility
operations; rental assistance; and shortterm payments to prevent homelessness.
HOPWA funds also may be used for health
care and mental health services, chemical
dependency treatment, nutritional services,
case management, assistance with daily
living and other supportive services.

Policies Governing
Housing and Community
Development
From a budgetary standpoint, housing choice
can be affected by the allocation of staff and
financial resources to housing related programs
and initiatives. The decline in federal funding
opportunities for affordable housing for lowerincome households has shifted much of the
challenge of affordable housing production to
state and local government decision makers.

57

The recent Westchester County, NY, fair
housing settlement also reinforces the
importance of expanding housing choice in
areas outside of high-poverty concentrations
of racial and/or ethnic minorities. While the
City of Buffalo, saturated in most areas by
racial/ethnic and/or low-income concentration,
can practically accomplish only so much
desegregation within its own jurisdiction, it must
ensure that its entitlement funds are applied in
ways that are consistent with this aim.

 Allocations across all programs have been
cut in recent years, reflecting nationwide
reductions in funding. These declines, along
with other complications, have resulted in lower
or delayed disbursement of funds to Buffalo’s
subrecipient agencies, who carry out much of
the affordable housing development and social
service activities.
The City recently developed its Five-Year
Consolidated Plan for FY 2013-2017, which
establishes priorities, goals and objectives to
guide the next five years of annual planning for
housing and community development activities.
The plan bases its identification of local needs
on a comprehensive analysis of available
data indicators and community outreach and
identifies a variety of “high” priority needs.
Each year’s CDBG budget typically includes
allocations for fair housing activities such as
education, outreach, complaints investigation
and/or testing through support of such agencies
as HOME, Legal Aid and Neighborhood Legal
Services. The provision of fair housing services
is eligible as either a program administration
cost or as a public service. In FY 2012, the City
allocated $58,841 to HOME, $82,049 to Legal
Aid Bureau and $27,697 to NLS.
The City’s HOME allocation, $3,018,683 in
FY12, was divided among owner-occupied
rehab, CHDO rehab and operating costs and
multi-family rehab or new construction. The
City does not spend HOME funds on tenantbased rental assistance. While the need exists,
administrative complications with the HOME
program would make it difficult to implement.

a. Project proposal
and selection
Each year, the Office of Strategic Planning
(OSP) and the Buffalo Urban Renewal
Agency (BURA) prepare the Annual
Action Plan and budget, which the Mayor
then submits to the Common Council for
approval. BURA staff members review
applications for CDBG and HOME
funds to determine eligibility, feasibility,
agency capacity; and make funding
recommendations according to the extent
to which proposed projects address needs
identified in the Consolidated Plan.
The RFP for HOME funding includes a
requirement that those proposing new
construction rental projects document
that sites are not located in an area of
minority concentration (though certain
exceptions apply), nor in a racially mixed
area if the project will cause a significant
increase in the proportion of minority to
non-minority residents. Because there
are relatively few non-concentrated areas
within Buffalo, most projects located within
concentrated areas have been cleared
under the exception that “The project is
necessary to meet overriding housing
needs that cannot be met in that housing
market area.” The “overriding housing
needs” criterion permits approval of sites
that are an integral part of an overall local
strategy for the preservation or restoration
of an immediate neighborhood.

The prevalence of
areas of minority
concentration
throughout the City
leave relatively few
non-impacted areas
available where
affordable housing
could be located.

58

 b. geographic distribution
of investments
Currently, all of Buffalo’s CDBG-funded
activities are directed to block groups that
are at least 51% low/moderate income.
Within these areas, the City targets
funding to neighborhoods that (1) are
near emerging employment and economic
development engines that can serve as a
stabilizing influence, (2) have developed
a cohesive network of community-based
and institutional support, and (3) have
secured dedicated funding to support their
efforts. These include the Buffalo Promise
Neighborhood (which has received both
planning and implementation grants from
HUD), Perry Choice Neighborhood (which
has received a planning grant and is
applying for implementation), West Side
Green Zone, and the Fruit Belt adjacent to
the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus.

map 5-1

Total HOME-Funded Multi-Family Project Sites
City of Buffalo
Source: HUD CPDMaps

With regard to the development and
redevelopment of affordable housing, siting
tends to be driven by developers, based
on the feasibility of individual projects
in proposed locations. For FY2012, the
City accepted HOME applications for
single-family new construction; singlefamily acquisition/rehab/resale in a
concentrated area; multi-family rental
rehab or new construction, single-site
and concentrated; and multi-family rental
adaptive reuse/conversion, single site.
While the application for City HOME
funds requires an explanation of how the
proposed work fits into the neighborhood
redevelopment strategy and identification
of its target population, the application
does not appear to consider site location
relative to existing low-income minority
concentrations.

As Map 5-1 demonstrates, the City’s multifamily HOME projects have been scattered
in a variety of neighborhoods. Historically,
many have been located in lower-income
areas such as Broadway-Fillmore and the
Lower West Side due to the perception

59

 c. affirmative marketing
of need in those neighborhoods and the
availability of affordable land or structures on
parcels zoned for multi-family development.
Additionally, any projects involving tax credits
would have been encouraged by the state’s
Qualified Allocation Plan to site in Qualified
Census Tracts (QCTs), where developers
receive a basis boost of 30%. Section 42 of
the Internal Revenue Code allows an increase
in eligible basis of up to 30% for certain lowincome housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects.
This basis boost results in a corresponding
30% increase in the maximum LIHTC
subsidy, which until 2008 had been available
only to projects located in QCTs or Difficult
Development Areas. A QCT is any census
tract in which at least half of all households
have an income less than 60% of the area’s
MHI. In Buffalo, QCTs are limited mostly
to racially/ethnically concentrated areas of
poverty.
Nonetheless, some HOME-funded multifamily projects are sited outside of racially/
ethnically concentrated areas, particularly
South Buffalo and North Buffalo.

Despite a primarily
developer-driven site
selection process for
HOME-financed affordable
housing projects, some
project sites exist outside
of concentrated areas.

The City is federally required to adopt
affirmative procedures and requirements for all
CDBG- or HOME-assisted housing with five or
more units. Such a plan should include:
•

Methods of informing the public,
owners, and potential tenants about
fair housing laws and the City’s policies

•

A description of what the owners
and/or the City will do to
affirmatively market housing assisted
with CDBG/HOME funds

•

A description of what the owners and/
or the City will do to inform
persons not likely to apply for housing
without special outreach

•

Maintenance of records to document
actions taken to affirmatively market
CDBG/HOME-assisted units and to
assess marketing effectiveness, and

•

A description of how efforts will be
assessed and what corrective actions
will be taken where requirements are
not met.

BURA requires all applicants for participation
in subsidized multi-family housing programs
with five or more units to submit an Affirmative
Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP) by
completing HUD form 935.2A, the purpose
of which is to help applicants ensure that
individuals of similar income levels in the
same housing market have a like range of
housing choices available to them, regardless
of protected class status. The AFHMP is
designed to help owners and agents effectively
market the availability of housing opportunities
to individuals of both minority and nonminority groups that are least likely to apply
for occupancy. When used aggressively, an
affirmative marketing plan can act as a tool for
integration.

60

 The AFHMP requires identification of the
party responsible for fulfilling the marketing
requirements.
Advertising of housing
opportunities must begin at least 90 days
prior to the initial or renewed occupancy
for new construction and substantial
rehabilitation projects. A worksheet is
included to determine the demographics
of the project and housing market area,
providing context to determine which
groups would be least likely to apply for the
housing without special outreach efforts.
Any residency preferences must be
justified and evaluated to determine
compliance with non-discrimination and
equal-opportunity requirements.
The fair housing poster must be displayed
in all offices in which sale or rental activity
takes place, and the AFHMP must be
available for public inspection at the sales
or rental office. Project site signs, if any,
must conspicuously display the HUDapproved Equal Housing Opportunity
logo, slogan or statement.

61

Applicants must devise and explain an
evaluation process to determine whether
marketing activities have been successful
in attracting individuals least likely to apply.
The AFHMP also includes a section on
staff training to determine the extent to
which staff are aware of the Plan, the Fair
Housing Act and proper tenant selection.
While the Plan seems to encourage staff
training and evaluation of the effectiveness
of marketing, it does not appear to require
either on a regular basis. The Plan could
be improved by adding specifics on how
BURA or City staff will monitor compliance,
as well as the consequences for noncompliance.

The City’s Affirmative
Fair Housing Marketing
Plan could be improved by
specifying how compliance
will be monitored and
what consequences exist
for non-compliance.

 Appointed Boards
and Commissions
A community’s sensitivity to fair housing issues
is often determined by those in positions of
public leadership. The perception of housing
needs and the intensity of a community’s
commitment to housing related goals and
objectives are often measured by board
members, directorships, and the extent to which
these individuals relate within an organized
framework of agencies, groups, and individuals
involved in housing matters. The expansion
of fair housing choice requires a team effort,
and public leadership and commitment is a
prerequisite to strategic action.
The following boards and commissions
influence issues related to housing and land
use in the City of Buffalo.

a. planning
board
The seven-member Planning Board
examines site plans for new construction
costing more than $100,000 and/or
rehabs of $80,000 or more. The board
is appointed by the mayor, and currently
consists of one Black male, four White
males and two White females.

b. zoning board
of appeals
The five-member Zoning Board of Appeals
reviews all applications seeking relief from
requirements of the code of ordinances.
The board is appointed by the mayor, and
currently consists of one Black and four
White males.

c. Buffalo municipal
Housing authority
The Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority
(BMHA) provides affordable housing
opportunities to low-income residents
through the administration of public
housing and housing choice voucher
programs. Its seven-member board
currently consists of three White men, two
Black men and two Black women. Five
members are appointed by the mayor,
and two are residents elected by BMHA
tenants.

d. commission on
citizens’ rights and
community relations
The Commission on Citizens’ Rights and
Community Relations works to prevent
discrimination against persons based
upon race, ethnic background, cultural
background, language, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, disability, nationality
and age; and to assure respect for the civil
liberties of all citizens. The Commission
forwards fair housing complaints to either
the City’s Fair Housing Officer or HOME.
This eight-member board is appointed
by the mayor; and currently consists of
three Black males, two Black females,
one Asian male, one White male, and one
White female.

Racial minorities are
represented on housingrelated boards and
conditions at proportions
consistent with their
population share, though
women comprise only onequarter of members.

62

 Accessibility of Residential
Dwelling Units
From a regulatory standpoint, local government
measures to control land use (such as zoning
regulations) define the range and density of
housing resources that can be introduced in
a community. Housing quality standards are
enforced through the local building code and
inspections procedures.

There is no known source
of public funding available
to assist persons with
disabilities in making
accessibility modifications
to their homes.

a. private housing
stock
The New York State Building Code contains
standards for the accessibility of private
housing structures that are consistent with
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
and Americans with Disabilities Act
accessibility guidelines. In order to ensure
that the applicable local, state and federal
accessibility standards are met in new
residential units, Buffalo’s Department of
Permit and Inspection Services reviews all
plans for new construction and substantial
rehabilitation.
In addition to enforcing
the state code, Buffalo inspectors ensure
compliance with federal regulations and all
applicable City ordinances.
All new multi-family buildings must be
accessible and, therefore, free of barriers.
Multi-family
projects
are
regulated
through the commercial building code,
which requires a minimum number of
accessible units and parking spaces. Many
accessibility improvements are readily
achievable with minimal cost. However, the
vast majority of housing units in Buffalo are
not accessible because they were built prior
to the enactment of the ADA in 1988. Older
multi-family structures are often exempt
from accessibility mandates.

63

The age and configuration of the City’s
housing stock present impediments, as
retrofitting older structures to make them
accessible can be infeasible due to cost.
Landlords who are new to the industry and
those who own smaller-scale apartments
(fewer than six units) are particularly
susceptible to fair housing violations.
While the state previously provided funds to
assist disabled persons in making reasonable
modifications for accessibility purposes, the
funds are no longer available, meaning that
those who request modifications must cover
the cost themselves. Because persons with
disabilities are disproportionately poor, the
cost of modifications can be burdensome,
limiting affordable housing options only
to units that are already accessible. The
limited funds available to add accessibility to
single-family homes is also an impediment
to the true integration of disabled persons
into communities in the least institutionalized
setting possible, a current HUD policy
aim. The critical issues of affordability
and accessibility must be addressed to
allow people with disabilities to remain in
independent, integrated housing in their
own communities.

 b. public housing
stock
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and 24 CFR Part 8 requires that five percent
of all public housing units be accessible
to persons with mobility impairments and
another two percent to persons with sensory
impairments. In addition, administrative
offices, application offices and other nonresidential facilities must be accessible
to persons with disabilities. UFAS is the
standard against which residential and
non-residential spaces are judged to be
accessible.
In 2004, BMHA completed a needs
assessment and transition plan in order to
evaluate and improve the accessibility of its
public housing inventory. More recently, a
26-volume update to the needs assessment
was completed by C&S Engineering. All
BMHA developments are subject to UFAS
for all new construction and rehabilitation
activities. BMHA maintains an inventory
of fully accessible units and allows
modifications to accommodate disability
needs.

The supply of housing
units accessible to
persons with disabilities
is limited, due to the
age of the City’s housing
stock and the lack
of funds available to
retrofit existing homes.

64

 Language
Accommodations
HUD’s guidance relative to Executive Order
13166, “Improving Access to Services for
Persons with Limited English Proficiency,”
stipulates that a community can achieve
compliance by providing certain services for
LEP language groups with more than 1,000
persons or one percent of the population to
be served. As noted earlier, the number of
LEP Spanish speakers in Buffalo exceeds
5,700. Although there is no requirement to
develop a Language Access Plan (LAP),
HUD entitlement communities are responsible
for serving persons with LEP in accordance
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Preparation of a LAP is the most effective way
to achieve compliance.
The City has not adopted a universal LAP,
leaving language accommodations up to the
discretion of individual departments. Many
departments include Spanish speakers, and
some documents are available in Spanish.
BMHA provides a relatively high degree of
access, including bilingual staff members -certain job positions require Spanish language
proficiency -- and distribution of promotional
materials in Spanish.

An LAP involves a four-factor analysis to
evaluate the need for translation and/or other
accommodations:
•

The number or proportion of persons
with LEP to be served or likely to be
encountered by the program

•

The frequency with which persons with
LEP come into contact with the program

•

The nature and importance of the
program, activity or services provided
by the program, and

•

Resources available to the grantee vs.
costs

Currently, each City department is responsible
to ensure that it provides adequate
opportunities for engagement by persons with
LEP. Ideally, each department would adopt a
set of LAP policies to specify how it will serve
limited-English residents among its programs’
target populations, who may need assistance
accessing local government programs and
services.

BURA should consider
adopting a Language
Access Plan to specify
how the agency will
ensure access to programs
and services for the
City’s growing Hispanic
population.

65

 Zoning, Land Use
and Comprehensive Planning
A community’s comprehensive plan is a
statement of policies relative to new development
and preservation of existing assets. The
land use element of the comprehensive plan
defines the location, type and character of
future development, while the housing element
expresses the preferred density and intensity
of residential neighborhoods. Taken together,
the land use and housing elements define a
vision of the type of place that a community
wishes to become.
While the City enforces a zoning ordinance that
was originally written in 1953, it is engaged in an
ambitious project, the Green Code, designed to
implement its latest Comprehensive Plan. The
Green Code a land use plan and the creation
of a new, form-based zoning ordinance.
The Land Use Plan delineates the City into
neighborhoods, districts and corridors, each of
which will be addressed by tailored regulatory
approaches based on their distinct character
and function. The Plan identifies sustainability
as an overarching theme within the context
of economic well-being, social equity and
envionmental quality. Housing is most directly
addressed in the neighborhoods category,
which proposes:
•

Identifying five major neighborhood types
based on their character, form and mix
of uses, in order to plan in a way that
preserves neighborhood character while
encouraging redevelopment consistent
with prevailing patterns

•

Encouraging
integrated
mixeduse development at the center of
neighborhoods, identifying a mixed-use
center in every neighborhood (existing or
proposed) to promote pedestrian safety,
comfort and interest

•

Expanding use and development options

in distressed neighborhoods, allowing
transitional uses in predominantly vacant
areas, such as gardening, side lot programs
or urban agriculture, while keeping open
longer-term options for redevelopment
•

Facilitating infill
neighborhoods

programs

in

strong

The Plan includes a strong emphasis on
integrating a variety of transportation options
in strengthening and redeveloping City
neighborhoods, promoting walkability and
bicycle infrastructure.
The Plan’s emphasis on neighborhood form, as
opposed to segregating of land uses, carries
strong positive implications for fair housing,
provided that the form requirements would
not effectively prohibit affordable housing
types.
Generally, form-based codes are
based on community-defined design concepts
addressing the relationship between structures
and the public realm, the form and mass of
buildings in relation to one another and the
scale and type of streets and blocks. Planning
staff members explained that the Green Code
will open more neighborhoods to affordable
housing types by returning regulation to
pre-1953 rules, allowing construction within
existing lot lines, therefore allowing for smaller
frontage. Emphasis will be on the relationship
of structures to the built environment, allowing
for a wider array of uses in a given area.
The new Zoning Code, particularly its deemphasis on the separation of land uses,
will resolve some of the City’s long-standing
fair housing issues with regard to the siting
and development of group homes. Special
restrictions on the development of group
homes, unless executed against all residential
uses in the zoning district, are an impediment to
the siting of group homes in violation of the Fair

66

 Housing Act. New York law stipulates that local
governments must allow group homes that are
functionally equivalent to family households
in any single-family neighborhood. However,
Buffalo observes New York’s 1978 Site
Selection of Community Residential Facilities
Law (the Padavan Law), which requires
developers of licensed group homes for the
mentally disabled to notify community residents
of the intention to establish a group home and
accept public comments. Additionally, the
Padavan Law allows municipalities to reject
proposed group home sites on the basis
of over-concentration. While the Padavan
Law has provided a means for developers to
establish such homes in any municipality, it
also presents important inconsistencies with
the federal Fair Housing Act.
According to local fair housing advocates,
unfair treatment of group homes is a recurring
issue that disproportionately impacts members
of the protected classes. Human service
agencies must currently obtain a permit to

establish facilities, even if the proposed use
is within those allowed by right in the district
in question. The process requires operators
to prove that their facilities won’t negatively
impact the neighborhood in which they plan
to site. Advocates collaborated to provide the
City with a model ordinance related to group
homes, but the City’s Common Council has
not adopted this ordinance, choosing instead
to renew its existing discriminatory provisions.
In addition to recalibrating its local regulations
to implement the Comprehensive Plan, the City
is working to increase the efficiency of projects
through the bureaucratic approvals process.
Currently, any proposal for development
involving more than $100,000 must be
reviewed by the Planning Board to ensure
compliance with key requirements. City staff
expect that the form-based code could allow
them to waive some of the approvals process
in order to expedite projects.

Generally, the new Green
Code carries strong
positive implications from
a fair housing perspective,
allowing for an expansion
of affordable housing types
in a wider variety of areas.

67

 Public Housing and
Voucher Programs

a. historical
background
BMHA owns and manages 5,034 units
of public housing in 20 communities and
administers a Housing Choice Voucher
program. Most of BMHA’s vouchers are
administered by the Rental Assistance
Corporation of Buffalo (RACB), a non-profit
organization, while Erie County’s vouchers
are administered by Belmont Housing
Resources. The voucher jurisdiction for all
three agencies is across Erie County, though
all three agencies operate independently
and maintain separate program rules and
waiting lists.
Buffalo was one of the first communities
in which HUD’s Section 8 program was
implemented in 1976. At that time, the
City opted to engage a subcontractor,
Housing Authority of the Niagara Frontier,
to administer its voucher program. RACB
is the successor to that organization and
currently manages about 5,100 of BMHA’s
vouchers. BMHA administers additional
vouchers it received as a result of a voluntary
compliance agreement settlement of a fair
housing lawsuit.
The fair housing landscape of public
housing in greater Buffalo is shaped largely
by the landmark Comer v. Cisneros case,
a discrimination claim that resulted in two
consent decrees in 1996: one settling publichousing-related claims against BMHA, and
the other settling voucher-related claims
against RACB, the City, Belmont and
the Erie County consortium. A voucher
recipient, Jessie Comer, filed suit on behalf
of minority class members alleging that the
policies and practices of the defendants

perpetuated racial segregation patterns.
The suit claimed that BMHA gave priority
maintenance to public housing projects with
higher proportions of White residents; that
RACB failed to conduct sufficient landlord
outreach in White neighborhoods; that the
City failed to provide adequate oversight of
BMHA and RACB, allowing them to operate
in ways that contributed to discrimination;
that Belmont’s preference for suburban
residents (who were 85% White) was
discriminatory; and that the Erie County
consortium, including 41 towns and villages,
allowed Belmont to apply its discriminatory
preference.
The settlement’s
following:

results

included

the

•

BMHA agreed to clear 502 units at
three sites and replace them with 450
vouchers and 50 new units built outside
of minority or poverty concentration.

•

BMHA and the City agreed to administer
a tenant selection and placement plan to
advance integration, to improve certain
sites and to further involve tenants in
future planning efforts.

•

HUD agreed to provide 300 additional
vouchers for minority households whose
placement would be delayed by the new
tenant selection policies.

•

RACB
and
administrative

Belmont
eliminated
barriers to voucher

68

 program participation. A total of 800
vouchers were authorized for use by
minorities who had been passed over as
a result of the local residency preference.
•

HUD and the City agreed to fund a
Community Housing Center to maintain
a central list of affordable housing and
administer a voucher mobility program.

Additionally, RACB and Belmont were ordered
to develop a common cross-application and
cross-listing procedure with BMHA to simplify
the application process for applicants to any
of the three agencies.
According to BMHA, the voluntary
compliance agreement related to the
settlement was satisfied in 2003. Since
then, some provisions of the settlement have
remained in implementation, including the
housing mobility program (though Belmont
has reportedly since opted out of active
participation). HOME, a local fair housing
advocacy agency, operates the Greater
Buffalo Community Housing Center “to
empower families to make a truly free and
informed choice about where they will live
-- and, if their choice is to move to another
neighborhood or community, to make their
transition a successful one.”

As part of the mobility program, HOME makes
presentations at all voucher briefings and
provides a private one-hour counseling session
to any households interested in the mobility
program. HOME assists in defining a family’s
neighborhood or community preferences,
selecting a suitable unit and making the
transition into the unit, following up via phone
after the move to offer any needed assistance.
The mobility program provides security
deposit assistance of up to $400 in opportunity
communities, which are defined as those
with less than 25% of families living below
poverty. According to HOME staff, finding units
affordable at the fair market rent in opportunity
communities is difficult, within and outside of
the City. Since 2000, the mobility program has
assisted more than 2,000 voucher households.
The mobility program primarily involves
households who receive vouchers from RACB.
BMHA staff indicated that the program is
available for its voucher holders, but BMHA
administers only about 10% of its own
vouchers, and interviews indicated that the
mobility program is not highly integrated with
BMHA’s voucher administration.
Other provisions of the settlement are no
longer in effect; for example, though RACB,
Belmont and HACB were required to create a
cross-application and cross-listing process for
their waiting list, the three agencies have since
reverted to maintaining separate applications
and wait lists.

The three voucher
administrator agencies,
once required to maintain
a centralized application
process and waiting list,
have since reverted to
operating separately,
which has increased
confusion for eligible
families.

69

 map 5-2

Comparison of Public Housing Sites
and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated LMI Areas, 2013

Source: BMHA, 2010 ACS

#
#

#
#

# #

#

#
#
##

#

#
#
#

#

##

±
Number of Units
#

Less than 50

#

50 to 100

#

More than 100
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated LMI Areas
2010 Census Tracts

70

 b. current inventory
and tenants served
Map 5-2 on the previous page displays
the distribution of BMHA’s public
housing developments, indicating that
they are dispersed across a variety of
neighborhoods. While most units are in
areas of racial or ethnic concentration,
other developments are outside of racially/
ethnically concentrated low/moderateincome areas.

BMHA’s 5,034 units of public housing
include 69 studio units (1.4%), 1,608 onebedroom units (31.9%), 2,161 two-bedroom
units (42.9%), 951 three-bedroom units
(18.9%) and 245 units with four or more
bedrooms (4.9%). Unit sizes are scattered
broadly across various developments, with
most offering a variety of sizes. BMHA
plans to reduce its total inventory through
the possible demolition of units at AD Price
Courts and at Perry Homes. In all cases,
BMHA will apply a mixed-finance strategy to
replace lost units.

figure 5-1

Characteristics of Public Housing Residents
Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, June 2012
Cu ent
otal hou ehol

e i ent

3,375

100%

2,565
540
211

76%
16%
6%

1,070
398
467
626
728

33%
12%
14%
19%
22%

2,498
844
0
34
371

74%
25%
0%
1%
11%

1,890
641
439
236
101
34

56%
19%
13%
7%
3%
1%

n o e le el
Extremely low income (30% or less of AMI)
Very low income (30.1% to 50% of AMI)
Low income (50.1% to 80% of AMI)
ou ehol ty e
Families with children
Elderly
Elderly with disabilities
Member with disabilities
Non-elderly, no children, no disability
a e an ethni ity
Black
White
Asian
Other race
Hispanic **
Cha a te i ti

y hou ehol

One person
Two people
Three people
Four people
Five people
Six or more people

71

i e

Note: Totals do not all reconcile due to different response totals across
categories.
* Categories are not mutually exclusive.
** Hispanic ethnicity is counted independently of race.
Source: Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority

 BMHA acknowledges that some racial
and ethnic segregation persists across
its inventory, a “lingering effect” of the
voluntary compliance agreement (VCA),
particularly a race-blind tenant selection
policy. This policy was approved by
all parties at the conclusion of the VCA.
However, with this in mind, BMHA allows
applicants or tenants in need of transfer to
specify site preferences.

While racial segregation
persists across public
housing developments,
BMHA allows applicants
and transfers to list
preferences among sites.

Figure 5-1 describes demographic
characteristics of BMHA public housing
resident households as of June 2012.
The waiting list is currently open, though
demographic data was not available for
review. Black households are extremely
overrepresented among families in public
housing, comprising 74% of current
households, which is double their 37.3%
share of all households.
Hispanic
households are slightly overrepresented,
comprising 11% of public housing
households and 7.1% of all households.
Also of note is the prevalence of households
with a disabled member. One-third of all
households reported a disability, which
indicates that lower-income households
with disabilities rely on the voucher
program for affordable housing.

72

 a. admissions and
continued occupancy
policy
The Admission and Continued Occupancy
Plan (ACOP) includes a public housing
authority’s policies on the selection and
admission of applicants from a waiting
list, screening of applicants for tenancy,
occupancy standards and policies,
informal
review/grievance
hearing
procedures, rent determinations, and
procedural guidelines on conducting
inspections, to name a few. BMHA’s
ACOP was reviewed from a fair housing
perspective to ensure that members of the
protected classes are afforded adequate
housing choices. Specifically, the ACOP
was reviewed to determine the presence
of the following policies and whether these
policies were in compliance with the Fair
Housing Act:
•

•

73

Fair housing and equal opportunity
non-discrimination clause that
provides a list of the protected
classes,
Reasonable
accommodation
policies for persons with disabilities
(relative to the application process,
unit selection, and grievance
procedures),

•

Accommodations for persons with
limited English proficiency and a list
of services a PHA provides to such
persons,

•

Definition of “family” and whether
or not it includes non-traditional
households
with
unrelated
individuals,

•

Tenant selection policies and
waiting
list
preferences
to
determine whether members of the
protected classes are given any
special consideration or if the local
preferences restrict their housing
choice,

•

Accommodations for applicants
who refuse a unit offered due
to a disability or other special
circumstance,

•

Transfer policies and procedures
and whether such policies impede
housing choice for members of the
protected classes,

•

Pet policy accommodations for
persons with disabilities that require
service or assistance animals, and

•

Grievance policies and procedures

BMHA’s ACOP begins with a statement of
fair housing and equal opportunity, noting
that the Authority will comply fully with all
federal, state, and local nondiscrimination
laws, prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of race, color, sex, religion, creed,
national or ethnic origin, age, marital or
familial status. The list of protections does
not include other classes protected at the
local or state levels, including military
status, sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression. More importantly, it
does not reflect recent changes to HUD
program regulations that expand the
number of protected classes for agencies
receiving federal housing funds.

 As of a Final Rule effective March 5, 2012,
HUD implemented policy with the intention of
ensuring that its core programs are open to all
eligible individuals and families regardless of
sexual orientation, gender identity or marital
status, prohibiting discrimination of those types
by any housing provider who receives HUD
funding, such as public housing agencies,
those who are insured by the Federal Housing
Administration (including lenders) and those
who participate in federal entitlement grant
programs through HUD.
In order to provide reasonable accomodation
to persons with disabilities, BMHA will grant
all such requests that do not cause an undue
financial and/or administrative burden or
represent a fundamental alteration in the nature
of its program. Subject to the undue burdens
and fundamental alterations tests, BMHA will
correct physical situations or procedures that
create a barrier to equal housing opportunity.
With regard to persons with limited English
proficiency (LEP), BMHA states that it will
translate materials for any limited-English
language group representing at least
10% of the eligible population of Buffalo,
including documents related to application
intake, marketing, outreach, certification, reexamination and inspections.
Interviews
with housing stakeholders indicated that
BMHA has translated its documents into
Spanish and provides access to Spanishspeaking staff members, which would currently
meet HUD’s “safe harbor” guidelines for
Title VI compliance, given the City’s 2010
demographics.
Additionally, BMHA policy
is to conduct outreach to any limited-English
language group representing at least 5% of the
eligible population.

BMHA must update
its ACOP to prohibit
discrimination on the basis
of marital status, sexual
orientation or gender
identity.

BMHA’s definition of a “family” allows nonrelated individuals over age 18 to qualify,
provided that they share resources and become
jointly and severally responsible for adhering
to the lease and for rent or other charges.
Allowing non-traditional households with
unrelated members to share public housing
units is a flexibility that is commendable from a
fair housing perspective.
BMHA policy is to close its waiting list when
the estimated waiting period for applicants
reaches two years. The list is currently open.
The agency provides notice of any closure or
re-opening in local newspapers and to other
service providers in the community.
When selecting families from the list, BMHA
applies three local preferences: two points
for displaced families, one point for current or
former BMHA employees in good standing and
one point for honorably discharged veterans.
If BMHA denies an application for public
housing, the applicant has the right to request
an informal hearing with 30 days, which may
be conducted with BMHA staff, a central tenant
review board or a development-specific tenant
review board. These boards consist of tenant

74

 volunteers who have passed a four-hour training
session conducted by BMHA. Written notice
of the informal hearing’s outcome is mailed to
the applicant. In the event of sustained denial,
the applicant has 30 days to submit a written
request for a formal hearing, which would take
place before a Board of Review appointed by
BMHA commissioners, consisting of at least
one tenant-elected commissioner and two
other commissioners.
BMHA maintains site-specific waiting lists that
are subdivided based on the size and type
of units available. An applicant’s position on
a site-based waiting list is determined by the
date of development selection and by verified
preferences. Upon receiving an application,
BMHA replies with information about estimated
wait times for apartments to become available
at every site that has units of the applicant’s
needed size and type. Applicants must then
choose which site (only one) for which they
wish to be considered. Applicants may change
site selections at any time.
BMHA policy is to arrange for independent
testing at least once every three years
to ensure that its site-based waiting list
procedures are not being implemented in a
discriminatory manner, and that no patterns or
practices of discrimination exist. These results
are submitted to HUD but were not available
for review in the AI.
BMHA classifies four types of mandatory
unit transfers: those occurring for emergency
purposes (unit defects, a family health
condition, a hate crime, etc); environmental
transfers for tenants whose apartments have
been determined to have unacceptable levels
of lead paint, asbestos, mold or radon; fair
housing/Section 504 transfers, made at any
time to accommodate persons with disabilities;
and underhoused/overcrowded transfers to
house families in units of adequate size as they
become available.

75

BMHA allows non-mandatory transfers
under particular circumstances, including
overhousing (for instance, if a family is paying
rent based on the number of bedrooms in their
unit and could save money by transferring to
a smaller, but still adequately sized unit) or to
reunite split families. Also, BMHA retains a
considerable degree of discretion in allowing
“tenant retention” transfers, which allow moving
within the inventory to resolve “situations that
affect the continued well being of the tenant” or
to retain tenants with good residency records.
BMHA places restrictions on the number and
type of animals that residents may keep as
pets and imposes requirements on their care
and control. However, exception is provided
for assistance animals as a reasonable
accommodation.
The ACOP describes BMHA’s appeal
procedures, including the informal hearing
process and grievance handling. The informal
hearing process applies for applicants, while
the grievance process is available to residents.
Reasonable accommodations are available
through both processes to ensure fair treatment
for persons with disabilities.

 B. vOUCHER PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATIVE PLANs
The
Housing
Choice
Voucher
Administrative Plan (HCVAP) is the policy
and procedure manual that includes
the regulations governing this housing
assistance program.
Generally, the
HCVAP includes policies that describe
the selection and admission of applicants
from the PHA waiting list, the issuance and
denial of vouchers, occupancy policies,
landlord participation, subsidy standards,
informal
review/hearing
procedures,
payment standards, the Housing Quality
Standard (HQS) inspection process, and
reasonable rents, to name a few.
The HCVAPs for both BMHA and RACB
were reviewed from a fair housing
perspective to ensure that members of the
protected classes are afforded adequate
housing choices. Specifically, the HCVAPs
were reviewed to determine the presence
of the following policies and whether these
policies were in compliance with the Fair
Housing Act:
•

Fair housing and equal opportunity
non-discrimination
clause
that
provides a list of the protected classes,

•

Reasonable accommodation policies
for persons with disabilities (in the
application process, unit search and
selection, and grievance process),

•

Accommodations for persons with
limited English proficiency and a list
of services a PHA provides to such
persons,

•

Definition of “family” and whether or not
it includes non-traditional households
with unrelated individuals,

•

Tenant selection policies and waiting
list preferences to determine whether

members of the protected classes are
given any special consideration or
if the local preferences restrict their
housing choice,
•

Recruitment of landlords who own
properties in non-impacted areas,

•

Portability policies and procedures
and their effect on members of the
protected classes,

•

Higher payment standards for units
that accommodate persons with
disabilities, and

•

Grievance policies and procedures.

The edition of BMHA’s HCVAP updated
through October 2009 does not contain a
statement of anti-discrimination or equal
housing opportunity. RACB’s HCVAP also
does not, beyond a statement that it will
comply with all equal opportunity and fair
housing requirements imposed by contract
or federal law.

Both BMHA and RACB
should update their HCVAPs
to include equal opportunity
clauses that list the classes
protected within their
jurisdictions.

76

 BMHA’s HCVAP mentions that requests for
reasonable accommodation will be considered
(voucher deadline extensions, the briefing
process), but it does not contain an overarching statement or policy on accommodating
people with disabilities.
Similarly, RACB’s Plan includes only certain
specific references to disability-specific
policies, such as soliciting applications through
agencies that work with the disabled, voucher
deadlines extensions for the disabled and a
residency preference for the disabled.
Neither HCVAP includes discussion of ways
in which the voucher program accommodates
persons with LEP. While it is likely (and
documented by stakeholder interviews) that
both agencies have methods of eliminating
barriers to its programs and services for this
population, the expanding proportion of Buffalo
residents who speak English as a second
language warrants specific consideration.

Both BMHA and RACB
must update their
HCVAPs with language
accommodation policies.

77

BMHA’s Plan does not include a definition of
family, which would seem to indicate that any
household meeting all other listed conditions
may live together. RACB’s definition of family
is open and inclusive, namely either a single
person or group of persons, such as two or
more individuals residing together in a stable
relationship. Both Plans’ treatment of this issue
supports non-traditional family types that may
choose to live together for economic reasons.
Both BMHA and RACB are accepting
applications for vouchers. RACB’s wait list is
an estimated three years for the most recent
applicants. Applicants are not cross-listed.
Though this was the case during the years of
the Comer settlement, according to BMHA, the
arrangement was later annulled by RACB and
Belmont.
BMHA’s only preference in waiting list selection
is the date and time of application. RACB
mentions (but does not explain) a residency
preference, which presumably extends to
people living across Erie County, its jurisdiction,
and also extends preference to individuals who
are elderly or disabled.
With regard to recruiting landlords who
own property in non-impacted areas, both
authorities encourage participation in the
Greater Buffalo Community Housing Center
mobility program.
Advocates present
information about the program at all voucher
briefings. Further, BMHA’s Plan notes that
outreach to landlords with “suitable” properties
will be implemented as determined by need,
capacity and experience. RACB states that it
will encourage the participation of owners with
units in low-poverty areas through landlord
seminars, advertising in trade publications,
participation in trade organizations, print media
and public service announcements. Both
agencies indicated that “more than enough”
landlords currently participate, reflecting a
soft local rental market in which landlords are
happy to secure steady, reliable rental income
through the voucher program.

 As noted in other sections of the AI, landlords
within Buffalo are compelled to accept
Section 8 vouchers and other legal sources of
income. While a loophole allows landlords to
avoid renting to voucher holders by refusing
to meet the program’s required Housing
Quality Standards, the requirement promotes
acceptance of voucher families across the City.
Because Buffalo is the only municipality in the
region that has protected voucher holders
against discrimination, landlords in other areas
in and beyond Erie County are not required
to accept vouchers. About 20% of BMHA’s
voucher households live outside of Buffalo.
According to staff members interviewed at
both agencies, concentrations of voucher
holders still exist in certain areas, such as
Buffalo’s East Side, including zip codes 14211
and 14215. The 14215 zip code was originally
not a concentrated area, but became so
following voucher mobility efforts, reflecting a
combination of non-voucher household exodus
and an inflow of voucher holders.
BMHA voucher holders are initially given 60
days to secure a suitable unit, with an optional
extension of an additional 60 days, while “hard
to house” and disabled families are granted
up to 120 days. RACB allows a family up to
120 days to find an acceptable unit, though
additional time can be granted to families with
a disabled member, those who have been
subjected to discrimination, those seeking to
relocate to a low-poverty area or those with
other special needs.

BMHA and RACB maintain similar grievance
processes, including provisions for informal
hearings and reviews designed to resolve
disputes without legal action, to correct
programmatic/administrative errors, and to
respond to claims that laws or rules have been
incorrectly applied. In any case where RACB
makes a decision that may provide grounds
for review, it informs families via writing of
the decision, the reason for the decision, the
right to a review/hearing and the requirement
to request a review/hearing within 10 working
days. BMHA similarly allows 10 days for
families to submit a written request for an
informal hearing. Neither Plan explicitly states
that reasonable accommodations will be made
in the informal hearing/review process for
persons with disabilities.

Both BMHA and RACB
should update their Plans
to specify that reasonable
accommodations will be
granted to allow persons with
disabilities equal opportunity
during the informal review
and/or hearing process.

BMHA policy sets payment standards up to
110% of the current HUD fair market rent,
with consideration of vacancy rates, rents and
quality of units in the area to be served, as well
as success rates of voucher holders in finding
units, financial feasibility of the standards and
any other relevant material. RACB’s policy is to
set payment standards within the basis range
permitted by HUD, while monitoring rent in lowpoverty areas to ensure the greatest number of
opportunities for participating families.

78

 Property Taxes
While not a direct impediment to fair housing
choice, real estate taxes can impact the choice
that households make with regard to where
to live. Tax increases can be burdensome
to low-income homeowners, and increases
are usually passed on to renters through rent
increases. Tax rates for specific districts and
the assessed value of all properties are the two
major calculations used to determine revenues
collected by a jurisdiction. Determining a
jurisdiction’s relative housing affordability, in
part, can be accomplished using tax rates.
However, a straight comparison of tax rates
to determine whether a property is affordable
or unaffordable gives an incomplete and
unrealistic picture. High rates may be the
result of low assessed values, leading to a
fairly low tax bill for any given property. In all
of the communities surrounding a jurisdiction,
comparable rates for various classes of
property (residential, commercial, industrial) are
assigned to balance each community’s unique
set of resources and needs. These factors and
others that are out of the municipality’s control
must be considered when performing tax rate
comparisons.
Real estate taxes are a primary source of local
government revenue in New York, levied on
land and buildings to provide revenue streams
for counties, municipalities and school districts.
In Erie County, comparing rates among
municipalities is largely irrelevant, because
each municipality is responsible for conducting
its own property assessments and setting the
percentage of market value that is taxable. In
2001, the City of Buffalo instituted an annual
review intended to maintain a fair relationship
between the assessed value of properties and
their fair market value. Nonetheless, advocates
have indicated that unfair assessments
continue to occur in various areas of the City,
impacting both wealthy neighborhoods and
lower-income areas where homeowners can

79

least afford increases. Across New York, the
quality and frequency of property assessment
varies drastically, with the result that properties
with similar market values are assigned widely
different assessed values.
New York’s Office of Real Property Services
assigns each municipality an annual
equalization rate that represents the overall
ratio of a municipality’s total assessed value
to the municipality’s total market value. This
is done to apportion property taxes equitably
among school districts and counties, so that
the total levy for each is divided according to
the total market value of each municipality.
Overall, property tax rates in Western New
York are regarded as extremely high. In July
2011, while enacting a property tax cap law,
Governor Cuomo declared New York “the tax
capital of the nation,” noting that the heavy
costs of settling in a place like Erie County
did nothing to help stem its population exodus
in recent decades. In that year, the median
residential property tax bill in Erie County was
$3,990, compared to $3,755 across New York
and only $1,917 across the United States.

 Property taxes in Erie County are considerable.
As of 2012, a Buffalo home assessed at
$150,000 would pay a combined $3,120 in
municipal and school taxes, compared to a low
of $2,638 in the portion of Concord within the
Holland school district and a high of $6,390 in
the portion of Cheektowaga within the Sloan
school district.
Much has been written about the structurally
regressive nature of property taxes, which are
not adjusted to reflect a taxpayer’s ability to pay.
The effects of heavy reliance on property taxes
in a system of fragmented local governments
include:
•

Fiscal zoning, as jurisdictions selectively
develop expensive properties with low
service needs for the purpose of attracting
affluent residents and businesses.
A
pool of high assessed values allows
these jurisdictions to keep taxes low, but
excludes affordable housing;

•

Incentivizing sprawl, as wealthier residents
and businesses are often attracted to
the lower property tax rates in such
communities and move, leaving behind
urban core areas with greater social needs
(which, given the resulting population loss,
often raise tax rates to maintain revenues,
thus becoming even less competitive); and

•

The significance of higher property taxes on
residential properties is that the amount of
taxes must be factored into the question of
affordability. If a property owner is considering
the purchase of a home, estimating the
monthly mortgage payment must include
the mortgage principal and interest, property
taxes and homeowner’s insurance. In addition
to any locational differences this affects,
burdensome property taxes may threaten the
ability of lower-income households, which
are disproportionately represented among
members of the protected classes, to maintain
stable home ownership.
Several tax relief programs are available to
eligible property owners, including the School
Tax Relief Program (STAR), which is effectively
a homestead exemption on the amount of
property assessed for school taxes, in addition
to City exemptions for low-income seniors and
persons with disabilities.

Property taxes across Erie
County are among the
highest in the United States.

Slower rates of housing production
in municipalities with comparatively
high rates, as developers target less
burdensome communities.

The City of Buffalo exists in an environment of
regional competition in which these principles
apply. As a jurisdiction’s tax climate affects
its competitive position within the region and
larger, systemic reliance on property taxes
ensures that the above factors are in play
across the region, tax policy becomes an
important part of locational decision making.

80

 Public Transit
Households without a vehicle, which in most
cases are primarily low-moderate income, are at
a disadvantage in accessing jobs and services,
particularly if public transit is inadequate or
absent. Access to public transit is critical to
these households. Without convenient access,
employment is potentially at risk and the ability
to remain housed is threatened. The linkages
between residential areas (of concentrations
of minority and LMI persons) and employment
opportunities are key to expanding fair housing
choice.
According to the 2007-11 American Community
Survey, there were 14,519 transit-dependent
households in Buffalo, comprising 14% of all
households. The vast majority of City residents
(85%) drove to work in 2010, with 76% driving
alone. This is an increase of more than 10%
since 2000. In the City, 8% of residents utilized
public transit to get to work. This is down more
than 4% since 2000, when 12% of residents
used public transit.

Throughout Erie County, trends are similar,
though less pronounced.
Public transit
ridership and carpooling are down slightly
from 2000 while driving alone is up slightly.
Public transit ridership is a significantly
smaller percentage of the overall means of
transportation in the County, accounting for
just 4.0% of employment-related trips. These
numbers are shown in Figure 5-3.
Public transit ridership varies greatly by race
and ethnicity. Throughout the City, 8% of
Whites used public transit to get to and from
work. Minority households were more likely to
ride public transit to work. Among racial and
ethnic minorities, 14.4% of Hispanics, 23% of
Blacks and 31% of Asians used public transit
as their primary means of travel to work.
Hispanic households were also much more
likely to carpool or walk to work than any other
racial group. Figure 5-4 on the following page
shows these numbers.

figure 5-2

Means of Transportation to Work, 2000-2010
Total
Workers
Buffalo City

Erie County

Drove Alone

%

Carpool

%

Public
Transit

%

2000

110,640

72,317

65%

15,961

14%

13,625

12%

2010

153,819

116,793

76%

13,817

9%

12,408

8%

2000

421,809

341,098

81%

40,725

10%

17,223

4%

2010

449,258

365,500

81%

38,207

9%

17,782

4%

Source: 2000 Census (QT-P23), ACS 2006-2010 Census (S0804)

81

 figure 5-3

Means of Transportation to Work by Race and Ethnicity, 2010
Total
Workers

Drove
Alone

%

White

64,349

46,535

72%

6,063

9%

4,903

8%

3,972

6%

2,876

4%

Black

32,602

18,856

58%

3,294

10%

7,417

23%

1,722

5%

1,313

4%

Asian

2,665

1,282

48%

166

6%

836

31%

162

6%

219

8%

Hispanic

6,734

3,985

59%

1,051

16%

972

14%

641

10%

85

1%

Carpool

%

Public
Transit

%

Walked

%

Other

%

Source: ACS 2006-2010 Census (S0805 A,B,D,I)

Public transportation is provided by the
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority,
which is a multi-modal entity responsible for
two airports in addition to bus and rail transit.
The authority’s service area covers Erie and
Niagara counties. According to the American
Public Transit Association, NFTA provided
almost 27 million transit trips in 2010.
NFTA has experienced budget limitations over
the past several years. The agency raised
fares in May 2012 after weighing both service
cuts and rate hikes to cover the deficit.

NFTA works largely as a hub and spoke
system centered in the City of Buffalo. The
vast majority of City neighborhoods are within
a half mile of a transit route. Only one industrial
area in the southern part of the City is outside
of transit coverage, and it is mostly vacant.
While transit coverage is generally good within
the City, this analysis does not account for
frequency of routes. Immediately outside City
limits, transit coverage becomes increasingly
sparse and only the closest suburban areas
have frequent transit coverage. Most suburban
areas are covered by express routes, which
operate to move office workers to downtown
locations.

The majority of Buffalo
residents are within a halfmile of an existing transit
route, making bus travel
within the City relatively
easy.

82

 MAP 5-3
FTA Routes
2012

City of Buffalo

Metro Link Routes

Express Routes

Standard Routes

 

There were 22 major transit stations and
suburban park-and-ride locations in the
system in 2010. Express routes connect some
suburban centers with downtown Buffalo.
Within the City, most routes converge on
downtown Buffalo and follow major streets.
NFTA also operates one light rail line which
connects downtown Buffalo with the University
of Buffalo to the northeast.
All Metro Buses are equipped with wheelchair
lifts or ramps, in accordance with the American
with Disabilities Act (ADA). Buses are also
equipped with a kneeling function to make
boarding easier. For those unable to access
fixed-route bus services, NFTA provides
paratransit services to homes within its service
area. All Metro trains are equipped for people
with disabilities and all stations are accessible.
Many stations also provide video monitors
to assist deaf or hearing-impaired riders. All
stations are also equipped with communication
equipment to obtain information or report an
emergency. The NFTA also has an Advisory
Committee on the Disabled which meets
monthly to discuss disability issues as they
relate to transit. The NFTA provides mobility
training to anyone with a disability who wants
to learn how to ride the bus or rail system.

Transit routes to suburban
destinations are often
geared toward express
service downtown, making
them inconvenient for City
residents who work outside
Buffalo.

In order to promote the best possible use of
limited transportation resources, the Greater
Buffalo-Niagara
Regional
Transportation
Council produced the 2035 Long-Range
Transportation Plan investment strategy
document. The document outlines the region’s
vision for the future, which includes:
•
•
•
•

Creating
an
economically
and
environmentally healthy region,
Reversing current economic, land use,
social and demographic trends,
Promoting growth in areas with existing
infrastructure, and
Promoting equitable regional service for
all residents.

The plan outlines specific goals and objectives
to accomplish the vision:
•
•
•
•

•

Focus
on
transportation
projects
that preserve and enhance existing
transportation facilities
Improve user mobility and accessibility
Improve
the
region’s
economic
competitiveness
Develop a transportation system that
enhances and protects the region’s natural
environmental quality, cultural and historic
resources and communities
Achieve
better
inter-jurisdictional
coordination of transportation and land
use planning

84

 To accomplish these goals, the plan
recommends transportation improvements for
all modes including public transit. The plan
includes recommendations for three new “high
quality/high capacity” transit services including
an extension of the existing light rail line to
Crosspoint, an extension of the existing light
rail line to Tonawanda, and a new commuter
rail line between Buffalo and Niagara Falls.
The plan also recommends a region-wide
express bus service, as well as improvements
to Main Street that would include light
rail
infrastructure
improvements.
The
improvements to Main Street would reintroduce
automobile traffic to the street which has been
transit-only since the construction of Metro
Rail. Those investments have secured funding
and are proceeding.
While GBNRTC’s transportation plan and the
City’s Comprehensive Plan specify certain
transit routes for further study and development,
there is relatively little discussion of transitoriented development (TOD). TODs are higher
density, mixed-use developments located near
transit facilities. Such locations provide an
opportunity for the inclusion of an affordable
housing component, providing members of the
protected classes greater housing choice and
proximity to transit services.
The 2035 Transportation Plan does not address
land use, but the City’s Comprehensive Plan
does address the need for development along
major corridors. It also discusses a “mixed-use
transit station area” that would allow higher
densities near transit stops. The plan does not
include much additional guidance about these
areas or explain how they should be developed.
Generally, the City’s Comprehensive Plan is
viewed as a framework for additional, focused
neighborhood plans that would dictate exact
locations and designs for transit-oriented
development. The plan does encourage these
plans to take transit into consideration during
the neighborhood planning process.

85

 6

Private sector
policies and
practices

Mortgage Lending Trends
The Fair Housing Act prohibits lenders from
discriminating against members of the protected
classes in granting mortgage loans, providing
information on loans, imposing the terms and
conditions of loans (such as interest rates and
fees), conducting appraisals, and considering
whether to purchase loans. Unfettered access
to fair housing choice requires fair and equal
access to the mortgage lending market
regardless of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, familial status, disability, or any
other statutorily protected basis.

The most recent HMDA data available for
the City of Buffalo is for 2011. This analysis
includes all applications made between 2009
through 2011 for home purchase, refinancing,
or home improvement mortgages for oneto four-family dwellings and manufactured
housing units. The demographic and income
information provided is for the primary applicant
only. Co-applicants were not included in the
analysis. Figure 6-1 summarizes three years
of HMDA data by race, ethnicity, and action
taken on the applications, followed by detailed
analysis.

An analysis of mortgage applications and their
outcomes can identify possible discriminatory
lending practices and patterns in a community.
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data
contains records for all residential loan activity
reported by banks pursuant to the requirements
of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989. Any commercial
lending institution that makes five or more
home mortgage loans annually must report all
residential loan activity to the Federal Reserve
Bank, including information on applications
denied, withdrawn, or incomplete by race, sex,
and income of the applicant. This information
is used to determine whether financial
institutions are serving the housing needs of
their communities.

86

 Figure 6-1

Cumulative Mortgage Data Summary Report, 2009-2011
Total
Applications*

Originated

#
%
#
Loan Purpose
Home purchase
5,220
40%
2,937
Refinancing
5,498
43%
1,878
Home Improvement
2,179
17%
658
Loan Type
Conventional
6,948
54%
3,026
FHA
5,560
43%
2,303
VA
389
3%
144
Property Type
One to four-family unit
12,872 100%
5,468
Manufactured housing unit
25
0%
5
Applicant Race
White
8,166
63%
4,308
Black
2,025
16%
676
Asian
177
1%
83
Native American
52
0%
15
Hawaiian
27
0%
15
No information
1,318
10%
373
Not applicable
1,132
9%
3
Hispanic*
482
4%
202
Total
12,897 100%
5,473
Source: e era nanc a ns u ons a na on Counc
* Hispanic ethnicity is counted independently of race.

%

Approved Not
Accepted
#

%

Withdrawn/
Incomplete

Denied
#

%

#

%

56%
34%
30%

134
301
86

3%
5%
4%

424
1,382
1,329

8%
25%
61%

1,652
1,681
77

32%
31%
4%

44%
41%
37%

328
177
16

5%
3%
4%

2,163
901
71

31%
16%
18%

1,217
2,064
129

18%
37%
33%

42%
20%

519
2

4%
8%

3,118
17

24%
68%

3,410
0

26%
0%

53%
33%
47%
0%
56%
28%
0%
42%
42%
o

351
90
10
1
2
67
0
20
521

4%
4%
6%
2%
7%
5%
0%
4%
4%

1,667
919
44
23
5
477
0
168
3,135

20%
45%
25%
44%
19%
36%
0%
35%
24%

1,628
20%
285
14%
32
18%
13
25%
4
15%
319
24%
1,129 100%
50
10%
3,410 26.4%

Application Trends
Across Buffalo during the last three years,
lenders received 5,220 home purchase
mortgage applications, 5,498 applications for
mortgage refinancing and 2,179 applications
for home improvement equity loans.
Home purchase loans were the most likely to
be successful, with 56% of loans originated.
However, a significant number were withdrawn/
incomplete, approved and not accepted or
denied. At 25%, refinancing loans were three
times as likely to be denied as home purchase
loans. Home improvement loans had an even
higher rate of denial, at over 60 percent.
Just over half of applicants sought a
conventional loan, while 43% applied for loans
insured by the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA), which has historically benefited lowerincome residents. Only 3% of applications
were for loans backed by the Department of
Veteran Affairs (VA).

87

The racial and ethnic composition of loan
applicants differs somewhat from the City’s
overall demographics. While 38% of all Buffalo

households in 2011 were Black, only 19% of the
loan applications for which racial/ethnic data
was reported were Black. In addition, White
households were overrepresented among
mortgage applicants, with 78% of applications
from White applicants compared to 56% of all
households. Hispanic applications were about
half the share of their 7% of the total population.
Across racial and ethnic groups, loan application
types differed. Whites and Hispanics most
commonly sought home purchase loans. For
Black applicants, home improvement loans
were the most common application purpose,
while those with no racial or ethnic data were
most commonly applying for refinancing loans.

Lower participation in the
market for home mortgages
by minority households is
likely a reflection of the
lower median incomes of
these groups.

 Geographic Distribution of
Approvals by Lender
Figure 6-2 provides a summary of the top 10
lenders in the City based on total number of
loan originations between 2009 and 2011. M&T
Bank was the top lender in the City, accounting
for one in every five loans originated.
Notably, less lending activity occurs in the City’s
racially/ethnically concentrated LMI areas.
The overall lack of loans in these areas is an
indicator of low investment in their real estate
during 2009 to 2011, whether due to disparate
impact of the housing crisis or difficulty of credit
access for households who would purchase
homes in these areas.
RBS Citizens, which accounts for 9% of all
mortgage loans made in Buffalo during the
three-year study period, accounts for 12% 
of lending in impacted areas. Other lenders
have concentrated business in more affluent
neighborhoods, though it is unclear whether
this is due to any discriminatory practices or to
a lack of effective marketing to those living in
racially/ethnically concentrated lower-income
areas.

Figure 6-2

Top 10 Lenders, 2009-2011
en ing n titution

of oan
iginate

1,097
M&T Bank
788
HSBC Mortgage
515
RBS Citizens
374
First Niagara Bank
325
Devere Mortgage
283
Bank of America
271
Wells Fargo Bank
262
First Priority Mortgage
230
Keybank
104
Quicken Loans
5,473
otal oan
iginate
Source: e era nanc a ns u ons
Counc
o

% of otal
oan
iginate
20%
14%
9%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
2%
100%
a na on

Far less lending occurs in
the City’s racially/ethnically
concentrated lower-income
areas, though it is unclear
what causes this situation.

88

 Mortgage Application
Denials
Between 2009 and 2011, a total of 3,135
mortgage loan applications were denied in
Buffalo. The overall cumulative denial rate was
24% with denials by race and ethnicity ranging
from 20% for Whites to 45% for Blacks.

Blacks, Native Americans
and Hispanics had
mortgage denial rates
significantly higher than
Whites.

In reporting denials, lenders are required to
list at least one primary reason for the denial
and may list up to two secondary reasons.
The primary basis for the rejection of loan
applications was “no reason given.” Among
Blacks, credit history was the most common
reason for denial.

Figure 6-3

Primary Reason for Denial, 2009-2011
Total
White
Black
Credit History
26%
23%
33%
Debt-to-Income Ratio
14%
15%
14%
Collateral
13%
15%
9%
Other
6%
6%
5%
3%
3%
2%
Application Incomplete
3%
3%
3%
Unverifiable Information
1%
1%
1%
Insufficient Cash
1%
1%
0%
Employment History
0%
0%
0%
Insurance Denied
34%
32%
33%
No Reason Given
Source: e era nanc a ns u ons a na on Counc

89

Asian
Hispanic
9%
30%
20%
12%
20%
13%
5%
5%
2%
2%
5%
3%
0%
2%
5%
1%
0%
1%
34%
32%
o

 For this analysis, lower-income households
include those with incomes between 0% and
80% of median family income (MFI), while
upper-income households include those
with incomes above 80% MFI. Applications
by lower-income households accounted for
65% of all denials between 2009 and 2011,
although they accounted for only 50.0% of total
applications for those three years.

for upper-income households, differences
persisted across racial and ethnic groups. The
overall upper-income denial rate was 19%,
although it was 41 percent for Blacks and 28
percent for Hispanics. Lower-income White
households were significantly less likely to
experience denial than upper-income Black or
Hispanic households, a pattern consistent with
discrimination.

Among lower-income households, denial rates
were higher for minorities. While the overall
lower-income denial rate was 31%, the denial
rates for lower-income Hispanic and Black
households were 38% and 48%, respectively.
While denial rates were generally lower

Map 6-1 illustrates mortgage denial rates by
census tract. The highest denial rates occurred
in the City’s East Side, and the highest denial
rates in the City are found in racially/ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty.

Figure 6-4

Denials by Race/Ethnicity, 2009-2011
Total

White

Black

Total Applications
5,137
3,777
589
Upper-Income
Denials
983
572
242
19%
15%
41%
% Denied
6,451
4,042
1,345
Total Applications
Denials
2,027
1,029
648
Lower-Income
31%
25%
48%
% Denied
12,897
8,166
2,025
Total Applications
Total
Denials
3,135
1,667
919
24%
20%
45%
% Denied
Note: Total also includes 1,309 applications for which no income data was reported.
Source: e era nanc a ns u ons a na on Counc
o

Asian
42
1
2%
127
42
33%
177
44
25%

Hispanic
140
39
28%
323
123
38%
482
168
35%

Upper-income Black and
Hispanic households were
denied mortgage loans
more often than lowerincome White households.

90

 map 6-1

Denial Rates by Census Tract, 2009-2011
Source: FFIEC HMDA Files

Census Tracts
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated LMI Areas

Percent Denied
Less than 25%
25% to 50%
More than 50%

±

 High-Cost Lending
The widespread housing crisis of recent years
has brought a new level of public attention
to lending practices that victimize vulnerable
populations. Subprime lending has increased
the availability of credit to low-income persons
while exploiting borrowers and piling on
excessive fees, penalties, and interest rates
that make financial stability difficult to achieve.
Higher monthly mortgage payments make
housing less affordable, increasing the risk of
mortgage delinquency and foreclosure and the
likelihood that properties will fall into disrepair.
Some subprime borrowers have credit scores,
income levels, and down payments high
enough to qualify for conventional loans,
but are nonetheless steered toward more
expensive subprime mortgages. This is
especially true of minority groups, which tend
to fall disproportionately into the category of
subprime borrowers. The practice of targeting
minorities for subprime lending qualifies as
mortgage discrimination.
Since 2005, HMDA data has included price
information for loans priced above reporting
thresholds set by the Federal Reserve Board.
This data is provided by lenders and can be
aggregated to complete an analysis of loans
by lender or for a specified geographic area.
HMDA does not require lenders to report credit
scores for applicants, so the data does not
indicate which loans are subprime. It does,
however, provide price information for loans
considered “high-cost.”

A loan is considered high-cost if it meets one of
the following criteria:
•

A first-lien loan with an interest rate at
least three percentage points higher than
the prevailing U.S. Treasury standard at
the time the loan application was filed.
The standard is equal to the current price
ofcomparable-maturity Treasury securities

•

A second-lien loan with an interest rate at
least five percentage points higher than
the standard

Not all loans carrying high APRs are subprime,
and not all subprime loans carry high APRs.
However, high-cost lending is a strong predictor
of subprime lending, and it can also indicate
a loan that applies a heavy cost burden on
the borrower, increasing the risk of mortgage
delinquency.
Between 2009 and 2011, there were 5,473 home
purchase, refinance or home improvement
loans made for single-family or manufactured
units in Buffalo. Of this total, 5,230 disclosed
the borrower’s household income and 238
(less than 5%) reported high-cost mortgages.
Overall, upper-income households were less
likely to have high-cost mortgages than lowerincome households.

92

 An analysis of loans in Buffalo by race and
ethnicity reveals that Black and Hispanic
households are overrepresented in high-cost
lending. Lower-income Hispanic and upperincome Black households had higher rates of
high-cost loans than citywide averages.

Upper-income Black
households were more
likely to receive a highcost loan than lowerincome White households.

Map 6-2 depicts the distribution of high-cost
loans by census tract across the City. Highcost loans were generally concentrated in the
East and West Sides.

Figure 6-5

High-Cost Home Purchase Loans
by Race and Ethnicity, 2009-2011
Total

White

Black

Total Originations
2,591
2,171
High-Cost
86
62
% High-Cost
3%
3%
Total Originations
2,639
1,953
Lower-Income
High-Cost
138
101
% High-Cost
5%
5%
Total Originations
5,473
4,308
Total
238
170
High-Cost
4%
4%
% High-Cost
Note Total also includes 243 loans for which no income data was reported.
Source: e era nanc a ns u ons a na on Counc
o
Upper-Income

93

197
15
8%
445
22
5%
676
43
6%

Asian
24
1
4%
56
2
4%
83
3
4%

Hispanic
66
1
2%
130
10
8%
202
11
5%

 map 6-2

High-Cost Loan Rates by Census Tract, 2009-2011
Source: FFIEC HMDA Files

Census Tracts
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated LMI Areas

Percent High-Cost
Less than 5%
5% to 20%
More than 20%

±

 Annual Trends in
Mortgage Lending
Studying mortgage application data allows
insight into the influence of housing market
trends on the behavior of applicants and banks.
Housing markets across the country have
experienced steep declines in sales volume and
mortgage applications since 2009 as a result
of buyer reluctance in an unstable market, and
the number of applications in Buffalo reflects
this trend. The number of applications declined
22% between 2009 and 2010 and dropped
13% between 2010 and 2011.

During this time, the percentage of total
applications that resulted in loan originations
increased each year, although trends differed
among individual racial and ethnic groups.
The number of high-cost originations decreased
by more than two-thirds between 2009 and
2011, despite a slight increase between
2010 and 2011. The initial drop can likely be
attributed to increasing statutory control over
predatory lending practices. The slight rise,

Figure 6-6

Annual Trends in Mortgage Lending, 2009-2011
2009
#
Total loans
Applications
5,232
Black
807
White
3,217
Asian
70
Hispanic
205
Originations
2,151
Black
252
White
1,717
Asian
32
Hispanic
90
High Cost Originations
160
Black
31
White
114
Asian
3
Hispanic
6
Denials
1,208
Black
373
White
613
Asian
15
Hispanic
76
Source: e era nanc a ns u ons a

95

2010
%

#

100%
4,093
15%
638
61%
2,707
1%
65
4%
146
41%
1,768
31%
237
53%
1,371
46%
31
44%
60
7%
26
12%
3
7%
18
9%
7%
23%
1,031
46%
270
19%
580
21%
17
37%
50
na on Counc

2011
%

#

%

100%
16%
66%
2%
4%
43%
37%
51%
48%
41%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
25%
42%
21%
26%
34%

3,572
580
2,242
42
131
1,554
187
1,220
20
52
52
9
38
5
896
276
474
12
42

100%
16%
63%
1%
4%
44%
32%
54%
48%
40%
3%
5%
3%
0%
10%
25%
48%
21%
29%
32%

 however, is inconsistent with national trends
and should be monitored in the coming years.
Most racial and ethnic groups mirror citywide
trends with increases in high-cost lending in
2011.

Between 2009 and 2011,
high-cost lending rates
dropped substantially, both
overall and across racial
and ethnic groups.

Figure 6-7

Denial Rates, 2009-2011

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%

2009

25%

2010

20%

2011

15%
10%
5%
0%
Total

Black

White

Asian

Hispanic*

Other race

96

 Real Estate Advertising
Under federal law, no advertisement with
respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling
may indicate any preference, limitation, or
discrimination because of race, color, religion,
sex, handicap, familial status or national origin.
It is a violation of the Fair Housing Act for a
publisher or advertiser to publish or cause to
be published an advertisement that expresses
a preference, limitation or discrimination on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap,
familial status, or national origin. The law,
as found in the Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1988, describes the use of words,
photographs, symbols or other approaches
that are considered discriminatory.
The HomefinderExtra section of The Buffalo
News for the weeks of January 12, January
19 and January 26, 2013, was reviewed for
this analysis. The News is the only generalcirculation newspaper in Erie County, with
a print reach of about 180,000 each day and
266,000 on Sundays. The News estimates
that 62% of adults in Erie and Niagara counties
read the paper each Saturday, when the real
estate insert is published. Additionally, the
paper’s website is the most heavily trafficked
in Western New York, reporting more than 4.7
million views per month. HomefinderExtra
and ApartmentFinderExtra are web features
(realestate.buffalonews.com) mirroring and
expanding upon the print advertisements.
The review of ads was conducted to determine
the newspaper’s compliance with fair housing
laws and its own publisher’s policy. The
publisher’s policy on accepting advertisements
was not prominently displayed in the print
editions or online, though the print edition did
include a statement of disclaimer specifying
that the editorial department is not involved
in the production of Homefinder.
This,
presumably, intends to notify readers that

97

ads are not subject to the editorial standards
that apply to other sections of the publication.
However, this would not absolve the publisher
of the responsibility to uphold fair housing laws.
The process for placing an ad online did not
contain any instructions or statements regarding
equal housing opportunity or discrimination. In
accepting ads, The Buffalo News should state
that it will not knowingly accept any advertising
for real estate that is in violation of the Fair
Housing Act.
Despite the absence of an obvious statement
of policy to this effect, the hundreds of rental
and for-sale ads reviewed did not contain any
language that could reasonably be considered
to be discriminatory against members of the
protected classes. A couple of instances of
mildly questionable language were noted,
including an ad for condominium rental that
stated “medical and dental students welcome.”
Stating a preference for a particular type of
person implies that others, in this case perhaps
families with children, are less welcome. As a
general rule of thumb, real estate advertising
should describe the property, not the people
who should live there.
The overall absence of overtly discriminatory
or seriously questionable language speaks
to knowledge of fair housing laws and
responsibilities among News staff and/or real
estate agents who commonly place ads.

No overt discrimination
was evident in a sample
of print and online real
estate listings via The
Buffalo News.

 Real Estate Practices
The Buffalo Niagara Association of Realtors
(BNAR) is a professional organization that
provides a variety of services to its members,
including education, insurance, affinity
programs and legislative representation.
The demographic distribution of BNAR’s
members and directors is unclear. The City’s
2004 Analysis of Impediments was unable to
identify any Black or Hispanic board members
or employees. Representation of members
of the protected classes in the leadership of
organizations such as BNAR increases the
extent to which the needs of these groups are
understood and reflected in organizational
policies and practices.
In New York, anyone who negotiates the
sale, exchange, or rental of real property,
collects rent or negotiates a commercial loan
secured by a mortgage on behalf of someone
else and for a fee must be licensed as a real
estate broker. Real estate salespeople are
representatives of real estate brokers. In
order to qualify for a real estate salesperson’s
license, the applicant must complete a 74-hour
state-approved course. The applicant must
then successfully pass the state and national
portions of the qualifying examination.

Salespeople must renew their licenses every
two years. Prior to renewal, all licensed
salespeople are required to complete 22.5
hours of approved continuing education,
including at least three hours of instruction
pertaining to fair housing and/or discrimination
in the sale or rental of real property or an
interest of real property. This requirement
does not apply to attorneys admitted to the
New York State bar or practicing brokers who
have been licensed for at least 15 consecutive
years prior to July 2008.
In order to meet this continuing education
requirement, BNAR provides a full complement
of courses, including curricula focused on
federal fair housing laws and ADA legislation.
A three-hour course focusing on fair housing
alone is taught monthly at BNAR’s offices. The
course lists the milestones in the evolution of the
Fair Housing Act and the 1988 Amendments,
describes discriminatory housing practices,
defines protected classes, explains the ADA
and teaches class-sensitive advertising.

The extent of protected
class representation in
the membership and
leadership of BNAR is
unclear.

98

 7

evaluation of
current fair
housing profile

Progress Since
Previous AI
The most recent Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice was conducted in
2004 by Housing Opportunities Made Equal
(HOME). The document is comprehensive,
including a broad scope of study, a precise
collection of well-articulated impediments and
specific recommendations to address each
impediment.

exemptions than the state law, such as owneroccupied two- and three-unit structures. In a
2006 editorial, the Buffalo News declared the
law “no more than a shadow of what it could
be.” The ordinance passed narrowly and was
widely viewed as a compromise in the form of
local progress on fair housing that advocates
argued was 38 years overdue.

In Summer 2012, to satisfy conditions of its
HUD Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP)
grant, HOME produced a review of the City’s
progress in ameliorating the impediments
identified in the 2004 AI. While the 2004
AI did not include outcome measures or
benchmarks that would help to quantify the
City’s progress, HOME evaluated any actions
taken by the City related to the implementation
of AI recommendations. Overall, the report
concluded that City government had made the
most progress addressing issues “within its
locus of control.”

The following pages contain a table that
summarizes the original impediments and
recommended action steps alongside HOME’s
comments on each topic.

Perhaps chief among achievements in this
category was the adoption of a local fair
housing ordinance in 2006. During interviews
conducted for this AI, fair housing advocates
suggested that Buffalo’s law prohibiting housing
discrimination is more accurately described as
“a symbolic expression of a position.” While
the ordinance includes a broader collection of
protected classes than the New York Human
Rights Law, namely gender identity/expression
and source of income, it also includes more

99

As noted in the comments, many of the
impediments have remained unaddressed.
Research suggests that the reasons for action
plan steps remaining unimplemented are
related to limited funding, limited political will
and a lack of coordination within and across
various agencies. It appears that no particular
agency or department within City government
maintained responsibility for directing the
implementation of the Fair Housing Action
Plan.

 Original Impediment

Recommended Action

Comments on Progress

4.1: Zoning - The City's requirement
that non-profit human service
providers obtain a restricted use
permit constitutes an additional
burden which has a disparate impact
on people with disabilities.

The City should consider amending
May be addressed by Green Code
the Restricted Use Permit Ordinance
to provide objective standards for its
application and remove potentially
unconstitutional provisions adversely
affecting people with disabilities.

4.2: Code Enforcement - The City's
reduction in funding for demolition of
dilapidated and vacant homes has led
to a reduction in the quality of life and
property value in predominantly
minority neighborhoods.

The City should make a greater effort
to demolish vacant and dilapidated
housing. Those units which are in
high poverty areas and are suspected
to be structures used for criminal
activity should be given priority for
demolition.

Mayor Brown's "5 in 5" demolition
program, designed to be aggressive
and comprehensive, was on target to
clear 5,000 dilapidated units over five
years, though the impact of this
program on quality of life in minority
areas is unclear.

4.2: Code Enforcement - The City's
decision not to employ systematic
code enforcement has contributed to
a reduction in housing quality in
predominantly minority
neighborhoods.

The City should employ more
systemic code enforcement,
especially in areas where there are
high concentrations of rental property.

The City identified comprehensive
code enforcement areas, but they
don't include large portions of
predominantly minority areas, and
enforcement has not been consistent
or systematic.

4.4 - Public Services - A lack of bus
routes which run from the City of
Buffalo to suburban areas has limited
access to employment opportunities
and shopping centers for low-income
and disabled residents of the City of
Buffalo who rely on public
transportation.
4.5: Revitalization Policies - policies
and priority needs identified in
Buffalo's Annual Action Plan and A
Housing Strategy for the City of
Buffalo don't articulate specific
activities to affirmatively further fair
housing (as they have in recent
years).

Given increased numbers of Buffalo
residents who need to access
suburban communities for work or
services, the City should work with
the NFTA to increase travel options
for those who rely on public
transportation.

Needs to be addressed

• The City of Buffalo should
reincorporate into its planning
documents specific activities to
strengthen the fair housing aspect of
its community revitalization activities.
• Given the high degree of racial
segregation in the Buffalo
metropolitan area, the City of Buffalo
should work collaboratively with Erie
County to develop strategies aimed at
promoting residential diversity.

City has mentioned general policies
to remove barriers to affordable
housing, including in the zoning
ordinance, and planned to update the
AI.

4.6: Planning & Zoning Boards There is a current lack of racial and
ethnic diversity of both the Planning
Board and the Zoning Board of
Appeals and an apparent lack of
policies and procedures to promote
diversity.

The Mayor's Office should develop
and implement policies and
procedures for selecting qualified
candidates to serve on the planning
and zoning boards who are
representative of all segments of the
community.

The chairman of the Planning Board
is a Black man, and two women serve
on each of the Zoning and
Preservation boards. Members of
other protected classes were not
identified on these boards.

4.7 - Private/Public/Assisted Rental
Housing - Landlords may legally
reject applicants due to their source
of income (which impacts heavily on
Section 8 voucher holders and
persons receiving public assistance).

The City of Buffalo should consider
adopting a municipal fair housing
ordinance prohibiting discrimination
based upon lawful source of income
(including lawful source of rent
payment).

Ordinance passed, with Fair Housing
Officer investigating complaints.
There have been issues with
enforcement, though Corporation
Counsel has become more proactive.

100

 Original Impediment

Recommended Action

Comments on Progress

4.7 - Private/Public/Assisted Rental
Housing - The City of Buffalo does
not undertake systematic code
enforcement activities or enforce the
current rental housing business
licensing statute.

The City of Buffalo should move to
enforce its current landlord licensing
law or enact alternative legislation to
encourage housing code compliance
for Buffalo's rental housing stock.

Rental registration was implemented
in 2005, with staff handling an
estimated 20,000 complaints
annually. In 2011, 1,800 court cases
were filed based on housing code
violations. Still problems with
foreclosures, flipping and landlords
who cannot afford to remedy
violations. City inspects units in
response to complaints, can
ultimately make repairs or demo the
structure and assess costs against
land.

4.7: Private/Public/Assisted Rental
Housing - Very little private rental
housing in Buffalo is accessible to
persons with disabilities.

• The City should create a database
of accessible housing.
• The City should institute loan
programs to make assisted housing
accessible to persons with
disabilities.
• The City should ensure new publicly
assisted housing complies with
accessibility requirements.

Database does not exist. BURA has
an online list, but it is apparently not
current and doesn't specify
accessible units. There is no
documentation with respect to any
policies that ensure new houses are
compliant with all accessibility
requirements.

4.7 - PrivatelPublic/Assisted Rental
Housing - Occupancy by white
families at BMHA continues to remain
at levels far below what would be
expected when taking into account
the numbers of persons living below
the poverty line in Buffalo.

• BMHA should consider revising its
Tenant Selection and Assigument
Plan (TSAP) and restrictive transfer
policies. BMHA has reverted to TSAP
policies and procedures to permit
project preferences.
• BMHA should seek to market to a
more diverse pool of potential
applicants.

TSAP was updated in 2010 to allow
applicants/tranferees to change site
preference. BMHA agreed to submit
annual race/ethnicity reports, though
there is no online record of this, nor of
BMHA marketing to a diverse
audience.

4.7: Private/Public/Assisted Rental
Housing - The decision to focus on
creating senior housing has led to a
lack of available units for disabled
persons and larger families who need
subsidized housing.

The City should make an effort to
create larger accessible subsidized
dwelling units, or investigate the
possibility of turning vacant land,
parcels/buildings into larger
subsidized units.

May be addressed by Green Code

Future development of affordable
4.7: Private/Public/Assisted Rental
family housing should occur in other
Housing - Excluding BMHA
areas of Buffalo.
developments, all 12 affordable
'family' complexes are clustered in
the same high poverty area, instead
of being spread evenly throughout the
city (as are senior facilities)
4.7: Private/Public/Assisted Rental
Housing - Some housing complexes
which have been designated as
"affordable" have minimum rents
which are beyond the reach oflowincome tenants who do not have
Section 8 vouchers.

101

The latest Action Plan discusses
three new developments in Willert
Park, along with new homes
constructed by Bethel CDC. In
contrast to the Plan's
recommendation, all of these
developments are in high-poverty
areas.
Absent resources to provide
The Action Plan identifies
additional subsidies, the City should collaborative efforts fueled by federal
continue existing collaborative efforts HOME funds, including work with
aimed at economic and workforce
eight CHDOs, in addition to CDBG
development.
economic development activities.

4.8 - Section 8 Administration - Each The City of Buffalo should encourage No evident progress
of the three Section 8 administrators the three local Section 8 agencies to
in Erie County maintains a separate create a unified waiting list.
waiting list exposing prospective
applicants to waits of different lengths
for assistance.

 Original Impediment

Recommended Action

Comments on Progress

4.8 - Section 8 Administration Section 8 regulations relating to
exposure to lead-based paint have
had the unintended effect of
promoting discrimination against
families with children.

• As recommended above, Buffalo
should enact a municipal fair housing
ordinance prohibiting discrimination
based upon lawful source of income
(including lawful source of rent
payment).
• The City of Buffalo should seek
additional funding for lead-based
paint stabilization programs (such as
Lead Connections/LEAP ), providing
training as well as subsidized
materials and equipment to property
owners.

Currently no funding available to help
families with lead paint issues, though
the City, Erie County and the
Community Foundation started the
Green and Healthy Homes Initiative
to coordinate services to make
homes safe and efficient. The City
continues to conduct interim control
measures as part of its HOME-funded
rehab projects.

4.9 Group Homes - The difficulty of
establishing group homes is directly
affected by the perspectives of
elected officials and community
groups.

The City should adopt policies and
No evident progress
procedures with consistent criteria for
siting group homes and make the
decision making process less
subjective and political.

4.9 - Group Homes - No City official
has taken up the role formerly played
by the Director of the Mayor's Office
for Persons with Disabilities in
convening public meetings related to
proposed group homes.

The City should refill this position. If
budgetarily impossible, these
responsibilities should be shifted to
the ADA Compliance Officer.

4.10 Real Estate - The number of
dilapidated houses in low-income
areas depresses the real estate
market in predominantly minority
neighborhoods, affecting even the
value of new construction.

The City should initiate neighborhood
beautification programs to make
these areas more desirable. Special
incentives should also be offered to
promote new home ownership in
depressed areas.

4.10 Real Estate - At the present
time, there are no African-American
or Latino board members or
employees of the Buffalo-Niagara
Association of Realtors (BNAR).

The City has assigned an Assistant
Corporation Counsel as ADA
Coordinator. The City has enacted a
Title II Transition Plan that will be
enforced.

While there are no identified
initiatives to promote homeownership
in depressed areas, the City s
beautifcation programs include a
collaboration with Grassroots
Gardens and the Urban Homestead
program.
City should encourage BNAR to more As of March 1, 2012, BNAR
proactive in recruiting and retaining a apparently did not have any minority
more diverse board and staff.
members on its board of directors.

4.10 Real Estate - The BNAR does
not promulgate model procedures for
brokers to track minority participation
in member firms or to ensure equal
service to clients.

• City should encourage BNAR to
promulgate procedures to monitor
minority participation in member firms
and assure equal service for minority
clients.
• The City should encourage BNAR to
undertake self-testing of member
firms.
4.11 Fair Housing Advertising City should use available technology
Advertising only in community
to institute a centralized low-cost
newspapers or through devices such advertising forum available for all
as "for rent" signs contributes to a
rental housing in the City. The City
segmented housing market.
should also encourage property
owners to widely advertise listings.

No evident progress

4.12 Appraisals and Lending - Rates
of denial of government insured and
conventional mortgages, refinancing
loans and home improvement loans
are higher within the City of Buffalo
than suburban areas of the BuffaloNiagara region.

No evident progress

The City of Buffalo should work with
regulatory agencies and the Buffalo
CRA Coalition to develop strategies
aimed at reducing these disparities.

The City updates city-owned
properties for sale, though not
privately owned properties for sale or
rent. Offers public access channels
for advertising, but no action on
creating a centralized database.

102

 Original Impediment

103

Recommended Action

Comments on Progress

4.12: Appraisals and Lending Minority households seek loans at
lower rates and are denied loans at
higher rates than white households resulting in lower rates of minority
homeownership. Most notably, the
denial rate for minority applicants is
higher than for white applicants of
comparable incomes.

• In addition to actions described
No evident progress
above, the City should examine the
feasibility of mortgage testing.
• The City of Buffalo should work with
area lenders to establish loan pools
among them - increasing funds
available while reducing the risks to
any one lender.

4.12: Appraisals and Lending Subprime and predatory loans to
minority loan-seekers occur at
significantly greater rates than for
whites of comparable or lower
incomes. Advocates for the elderly
also indicate such loans target the
elderly.

The City of Buffalo should seek more
vigorous enforcement by the New
York State Attorney General's Office
of existing state laws governing
predatory lending and advocate for
strengthening anti-predatory
legislation passed in New York State
in 2002.

BURA adopted an anti-predatorylending policy in 2006, including a
Loan Review Committee that meets
monthly. No other actions.

4.12: Appraisals and Lending Testing for discriminatory lending
practices is difficult and
subprime/predatory lending abuses
are often not apparent to
unsophisticated borrowers at the time
of the loan.

The City of Buffalo should prohibit
home contractors who have arranged
predatory financing from conducting
business within the City of Buffalo.
Such contractors should also be
prosecuted for acting as unlicensed
mortgage brokers.
The City of Buffalo should continue to
support pre-horne-buying counseling
and financial literacy of city residents.

No evidence that the City has
attempted to prevent such contractors
from conducting business within
Buffalo. City helps to market and
conduct outreach for the homebuyer
assistance program, which provides
funding for closing costs.
Participants receive training and
qualification review.

4.12 Appraisals and Lending - The
high incidence of mortgage
foreclosures within minority
communities and unfair mortgage
foreclosure practices, exacerbated by
the prevalence of sub-prime and
predatory loans, threatens the socioeconomic stability of these
communities.

The City of Buffalo should hold
lenders accountable for properties for
which lenders have commenced
foreclosure proceedings - especially
when lenders do not follow through
with the foreclosure.

Still an issue. Permit and Inspection
Services holds lenders accountable
for their foreclosed-upon properties
through notices of violations and fines
if property is neglected.

4.12: Appraisals and Lending Predatory lending schemes targeting
minorities, elderly and lower-income
homeseekers have utilized fraudulent
appraisals to justify the inflated price
of the property.

As recommended in 1996, the City of No evident progress
Buffalo should petition the NYS
Legislature to enact a law requiring
public reporting of summary
information on property appraisals.

4.13 - Insurance - According to data
provided by the State Insurance
Department, Buffalo residents on
average pay more for homeowners
insurance than do similarly situated
suburban residents. The use of credit
scoring (reflecting historic
discrimination against minorities in
the credit market) in determining
insurance rates may contribute to this
disparity.

In collaboration with the State
No evident progress
Insurance Department, the City of
Buffalo should initiate a study of
underwriting criteria to determine the
basis for higher premiums charged to
Buffalo residents and develop
strategies to bring about more
equitable costs.

 Original Impediment

Recommended Action

Comments on Progress

4.13 - Insurance - Insurance
companies have chosen to locate
most offices outside the central city,
making coverage less accessible to
minority homeowners.

As recommended in 1996, the
No evident progress
Common Council should petition the
NYS Legislature to enact a law
requiring companies writing
homeowner insurance to annually
report the location of branch offices
and the number of policies in effect
by census tract (following the model
of the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act)
4.14 - Issues Affecting Persons with As recommended in the 1996 study, No evident progress
Disabilities - There is no effective
the City of Buffalo should engage the
means to link persons with disabilities services of an appropriate provider to
to accessible housing units.
link persons with disabilities with
accessible housing units.

4.14 - Issues Affecting Persons with
Disabilities - There is a need for
larger accessible housing units.

• After surveying agencies serving
No evident progress
persons with disabilities in order to
estimate demand, the City should
implement strategies designed to
encourage the construction of two,
three and four-bedroom accessible
units.
• The City of Buffalo should
collaborate with the Independent
Living Center, United Spinal
Association, and other Erie County
municipalities to sponsor a workshop
for architects and developers on the
concepts of visitability and universal
design.
4.14 - Issues Affecting Persons with The City should explore the feasibility No evident progress
Disabilities - Persons with disabilities of utilizing federal HOME funds to
often lack the ability to meet minimum create additional rental subsidies
income requirements of accessible
sufficient to permit very low-income
government-assisted housing
persons with disabilities to gain
developments.
admission to such assisted housing
developments.
4.14 - Issues Affecting Persons with The City should address these issues
within the scope of municipal fair
Disabilities - The exclusion of
applicants with a poor credit history or housing legislation.
a minor criminal record can have a
disparate impact on persons with
disabilities.

Fair housing ordinance passed with
source of income protection, but
didn't address disparate impact of
poor credit histories and minor
criminal records

4.14 - Issues Affecting Persons with
Disabilities - Services for persons
with disabilities are no longer readily
accessible in City Hall.

City replaced ADA Coordinator and
has published information on its
website to assist persons with
disabilities

If the City lacks the resources to
maintain a full-time advocacy office, it
should publicize the telephone
number and location of the ADA
Compliance Officer.

104

 105

Original Impediment

Recommended Action

Comments on Progress

4.15 - Fair Housing Education and
Enforcement - The City has not
undertaken "specific fair housing
information programs for officials and
employees having duties that impact
on fair housing (such as developing
zoning policies), planning assisted
housing, and community and
economic development activities" as
specified in the Fair Housing Planning
Guide.

• The Fair Housing Officer should be
empowered to assess training needs
of various City personnel and identify
appropriate trainers.
• As recommended in 1996, the Fair
Housing Officer should be given civil
service protection to permit
independent and effective internal
advocacy.

Officer has not been empowered to
assess City personnel on fair housing
issues, though he has suggested that
they attend training. Officer does not
have civil service protection.

4.15 - Fair Housing Education and
Enforcement - The City has reduced
support for fair housing education and
enforcement services to a level
inadequate to address fair housing
needs.

The City should consult with HUD
about determining adequate
resources for education and
enforcement activities. Because fair
housing is an activity extending
beyond municipal boundaries,
wherever possible the City should
seek to foster regional cooperation.

The Fair Housing Officer attends
trainings and performs outreach,
though it is not mandated by the City.

4.15 - Fair Housing Education and
Enforcement - The City has neither
adhered to nor amended its stated
Fair Housing Strategy.

• The City needs to review and
amend its Fair Housing Strategy. The
newly formed fair housing advisory
council may provide a forum to
develop to collaboratively develop a
new strategy.
• The City should adopt a formal
mechanism to consider and respond
to elements of this Action Plan,
providing a written rationale for
acceptance or rejection of various
elements and assigning responsibility
for their implementation. The Fair
Housing Officer should issue an
annual report to the Mayor, the
Common Council and HUD on
progress implementing the Action
Plan.

Unclear whether City has Fair
Housing Strategy beyond statements
that it will comply with fair housing
laws and affirmatively further fair
housing. No evident progress.

 Fair Housing
Infrastructure
This section reviews fair housing capacity
across Erie County, including advocacy
organizations and jurisdictional monitoring
and enforcement of local fair housing laws. As
explained below, the City relies on a network
of active and effective fair housing advocacy
organizations.

a. city of buffalo
The City of Buffalo enacted a fair housing
ordinance in 2006, extending protected class
status beyond state and federal protections
to also include gender expression/identity
and lawful source of income. Unlike the
New York Human Rights Law, Buffalo’s
ordinance permits discrimination related to
owner-occupied two- and three-unit homes.
Enforcement of the City’s fair housing
ordinance falls to a single fair housing officer,
who is designated to receive, investigate or
refer complaints to a qualified fair housing
enforcement agency. If upon investigation,
the fair housing officer certifies that there
has been an affirmative finding of probable
cause of discrimination, one of four things
may happen:
•

The officer may request that Corporation
Counsel files an action against the
accused party in a court of competent
jurisdiction to seek penalties,

•

The officer may request that a qualified
fair housing enforcement agency
commence a civil action or proceeding
for injunctive relief or damages against
the accused,

•

Corporation Counsel may seek
a contempt order from a court of

appropriate jurisdiction to enforce a
conciliation agreement, or
•

The complainant may commence a civil
action or proceeding for injunctive relief
or damages against the accused.

Because the fair housing officer’s time
is divided across an array of housingrelated responsibilities (landlord/tenant
issues, education and outreach, MBE/
WBE compliance), housing discrimination
complaints are typically referred to HOME.
Fair housing complaints represent only
a small percentage of the caseload, and
most have to do with source-of-income
discrimination, a protection not provided at
the state or federal levels. HOME declined
to make its available for review, but in 2004,
source-of-income complaints comprised
13% of its total fair housing caseload. This
indicates that City residents alleging this
type of discrimination can find recourse,
though the City generally does not issue
findings of probable cause itself.

Because the City’s fair
housing ordinance designates
a single employee to handle
fair housing issues, it
relies heavily on advocacy
organizations to enforce its
fair housing law.

106

 Former AI documents have recommended
that the City grant its civil service protection
to its fair housing officer in order to
ensure independent and effective internal
advocacy. The officer still does not have
this protection.

The City does not extend
civil service protection to its
fair housing officer, which
would ensure independent
and effective internal
advocacy.
The City conducts two landlord training
seminars annually at basic and advanced
levels. The fair housing officer instructs
sessions on fair housing and tenant selection
and attends the City’s foreclosure auctions.
By this means, the officer distributes copies
of the fair housing ordinance to all successful
bidders. Within City government, the officer
works with contract compliance to monitor
tenant plans.
With regard to areas for improvement,
the officer expressed a need for a higher
level of integration between the office and
City planning activities, so that the City’s
housing and community development
projects reflect issues he facing tenants
with housing problems. For example, a
commonly expressed need for apartments
with three or more bedrooms should be
reflected in the City’s plans for subsidized
housing development.

107

B. ERIE COUNTY
Erie County has not adopted a fair housing
or human rights ordinance, though it
created a Division on the Status of Women
and a Division for the Disabled to address
the needs of these groups.
The Erie County Fair Housing Partnership,
created in 1997, is a non-profit organization
committed to promoting equal housing
opportunity for all residents of Western
New York. The Partnership has a diverse
representation, involving government,
banking, real estate, legal services,
advocacy
groups
and
community
organizations. Its work consists largely of
education and outreach, including speaker
series, housing fairs and conferences,
affordable housing clinics, poster contests
and arranging local government fair
housing proclamations.
Stakeholders
indicated during AI interviews that there has
been some past tension among Partnership
participants reflecting reluctance among
religious organizations to promote the state
protection against discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.

 C. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
MADE EQUAL
HOME is a membership-based nonprofit
organization with fair housing as its purpose.
HOME serves all of Western New York,
though its primary focus is Buffalo and Erie
County. It has accumulated accolades at
all levels for its work, including HUD’s Best
Practices Award recognizing outstanding
achievement in fair housing and HUD’s
Pioneer of Fair Housing award.
HUD has designated the agency as a Fair
Housing Initiatives Program participant,
which allows HOME to conduct preliminary
investigation of discrimination claims,
including sending testers to properties
suspected
of
practicing
housing
discrimination. Testers are members of
the protected classes and control persons
(typically White, non-disabled) with the
same financial qualifications who evaluate
whether housing providers treat equally
qualified people differently. HOME has
conducted systemic discrimination testing,
in addition to testing whether housing
required to be accessibile to people with
disabilities meets federal standards. HOME
reports details of its testing results to HUD,
but declined to share these results with the
City during its preparation of this AI.
HOME is responsible for maintaining the
City’s fair housing database. The agency
refers validated cases of discrimination to
Neighborhood Legal Services. In 2008, its
investigations led to the prosecution of the
first source-of-income discrimination cases
brought under Buffalo’s 2006 fair housing
ordinance.

Following settlement of the landmark
Comer housing desegregation suit, HOME
was selected in a national search as
the lead agency to operate the Greater
Buffalo Community Housing Center. The
Center implements a mobility program to
empower families to make a truly free and
informed choice about where they will live
- and, if their choice is to move to another
neighborhood or community, to make their
transition a successful one.
HOME staff make presentations about the
program at all Section 8 voucher briefings,
then follow up with a subset of interested
households to provide private counseling.
HOME assists in defining a household’s
community preferences, selecting a unit
and transitioning into the unit. The agency
provides a security deposit of up to $400
in “opportunity communities,” defined as
those where less than 25% of families are
below the poverty line.
Since the Center opened in 1999, it has
served more than 2,000 households.
Though only those who receive a Section
8 voucher from one of the area’s three
voucher agencies may participate in the
mobility program, HOME publishes a
“mobility library” of information about Erie
County communities that is available to
all. Additionally, HOME maintains a list
of affordable housing available across the
County.

HOME has been at the center of the City’s
efforts to affirmatively further fair housing
since the first CDBG program year. The
organization proposed local fair housing
legislation in Buffalo in the late 1960s,
following through in advocacy efforts until
legislation to this effect was finally adopted
in 2006.

108

 D. buffalo urban league
The Buffalo Urban League has existed for
85 years to empower African-Americans,
other minorities and disadvantaged
individuals to secure economic self-reliance,
parity, power and civil rights. The League
currently specializes in issues relating to
mortgage discrimination and predatory
lending and has locally led Freddie Mac’s
“Don’t Borrow Trouble” program, which
involves a consortium of agencies that
coordinate investigation of reported
instances of predatory lending, mortgage
and financial literacy counseling, referral
of cases to appropriate legal agencies and
other services.
The Urban League is also involved with
HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Partnership
program, which provides support for the
League’s education and outreach efforts in
the form of presentations and workshops.
The League provides tenant/landlord and
fair housing counseling and foreclosure
prevention services. Pure fair housing
complaints are referred to HOME or directly
to HUD.

E. LEGAL AID BUREAU
Buffalo’s Legal Aid Bureau, which celebrated
its 100th anniversary in 2012, provides legal
counseling and representation to tenants
as well as landlords. In addition to advising
and assisting persons contesting evictions
or perceived discrimination, Legal Aid
defends landlords facing code violations or
foreclosure.

109

The Bureau, which currently employs 86
attorneys, has focused more recently on
adequately serving the City’s growing
population of immigrants and refugees, who
face language challenges as well as the
barriers of an unfamiliar and complicated
legal system. Additionally, the Bureau is
working to expand services to veterans and
the LGBT community.

E. NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL
SERVICES
Neighborhood Legal Services provides free
legal services to lower-income persons
and those with disabilities. It provides
the majority of its services within Erie,
Genesee, Niagara, Orleans and Wyoming
counties, though it provides disabilityrelated services across all of New York.
NLS has a housing unit to provide legal
assistance and advocacy to victims of
alleged discrimination. Additionally, the
agency provides community education
and outreach, targeted both generally and
to specific groups. Belmont, the agency
administering Erie County’s housing
voucher program, has involved NLS in its
training efforts. As noted, NLS follows up on
HOME’s validated cases of discrimination.

The work of these organizations is collectively
critical to the preservation and enhancement of
a fair housing landscape in the City, especially in
the absence of local government staff devoted to
these activities. However, overall decreases in
CDBG funding to the City have been reflected in
its contracts with these agencies to provide fair
housing services. In order to ensure that the local
fair housing infrastructure continues to operate
effectively, the City must remain committed to
adequately funding the agencies that sustain it.

Because the City relies
heavily upon advocacy
organizations to publicize
and enforce fair housing
laws, it must commit to
sustaining adequate funding
for their efforts through the
CDBG program.

 8

general
fair housing
observations

This section of the AI is a summary of general
observations included in earlier sections of
the report. General observations include the
results of primary and secondary research
that define the underlying conditions, trends,
and context for ensuring fair housing in the
City. These observations do not necessarily
constitute impediments to fair housing choice,
but they establish a contextual framework for
the impediments to fair housing choice that are
presented in the following section.

Demographic and Housing
Market Observations

1
2

Buffalo lost 43.5% of its population
between 1970 and 2010. Loss has
continued in the latest decade, as the
number of City residents fell 10.7%
from 292,648 in 2000 to 261,310 in
2010.
While there was a net population
loss among Whites and Blacks
between 2000 and 2010, the number
of Asians, multi-race and Hispanic
residents increased. Blacks continue
to represent the City’s largest minority
group, accounting for 38.6% of all
Buffalo residents in 2010.

3

Almost nine in every 10 census block
groups in Buffalo is racially and/or
ethnicically concentrated. Most of
these areas (83%) qualify as low- and
moderate income.

4

Though integration has increased
during the last 10 years, Buffalo’s
Black population remains highly
segregated from its White population.

5

The 2010 median income for Black
households in Buffalo was roughly
two-thirds the median income for
White households, while the median
income for Hispanic households was
less than half.
Lower household
incomes among Blacks and Hispanics
are reflected in lower home ownership
rates.

6

Of 162,034 lower-income households
across the Buffalo-Niagara Falls
region, 32.7% lived in majority lowerincome neighborhoods. Of 90,444
upper-income households, 7.5% lived
in upper-income neighborhoods. The
region’s economic segregation is
driven mostly by the concentration of
lower-income households in lowerincome areas.

7

Buffalo residents with disabilities
were more likely to live in poverty than
those without disabilties. In 2011,
35% of residents with disabilities
lived in poverty, compared to 30% of
persons without disabilities who were
living in poverty.

8

Six in every 10 Buffalo families under
the poverty line are female-headed
households with children. Married
couples with children under 18
represent a decreasing share of total
households, while single females with
children have become more common
since 1990.

110

 9
10
11

111

While the total number of housing
units in Buffalo has decreased since
2000, surrounding communities have
added to their housing inventories.
Only 36.3% of rental units in the
City have three or more bedrooms,
compared to more than 80% of owner
units. A lack of larger rental units
consisting of three or more bedrooms
has a disproportionately greater
impact on minority families, who tend
to live in larger families.

12

Of the 20,908 vacant housing units in
Buffalo in 2010, about two-thirds were
empty for reasons other than rental,
sale or seasonal use, suggesting
a high rate of residential property
abandonment.

13

Between 2008 and 2010, high-cost
lending rates dropped, on the whole
and across all racial and ethnic
groups. This is likely a direct result
of increased statutory control over
predatory lending practices, as well
as increasing borrower awareness.

14

Programmatic
Observations

Blacks
and
Hispanics
were
substantially more likely than Whites
and Asians to be unemployed in
2010.

Lower participation in the market
for home mortgages by Black
and Hispanic households is likely
a reflection of the lower median
incomes of these minority groups.

1
2

The City of Buffalo typically dedicates
roughly 1% of its CDBG budget
to fund agencies that provide fair
housing activities such as education,
outreach, complaint investigation and
testing.
The landmark Comer fair housing
case
resulted in actions that
advanced the equality of housing
choice for lower-income minorities,
such as the elimination of a suburban
residency preference in Erie County
and the creation of an effective
voucher mobility program.

3

The City is currently engaged in the
development of the Green Code, a
form-based planning effort that will
remove some existing barriers to the
development of affordable housing
types.

4

Black
households are strongly
overrepresented
among
public
housing residents and voucher
holders in comparison to their share
of all households across the City.

5

While racial segregation persists
across public housing developments,
BMHA allows applicants and transfers
to list and change preferences among
sites. Additionally, BMHA regularly
reviews the impact of its assignment
policies on fair housing choice,
reporting the results to HUD.

 9

impediments
to fair housing
choice

Public Sector Impediments:
Policy Based

1

barriers to the development
of group homes

The City’s current zoning regulations impose
undue additional requirements on group homes,
including requiring nonprofit human service
providers to obtain a restricted-use permit
and subjecting developers to neighborhood
opposition. According to fair housing standards,
group homes for eight or fewer disabled persons
should be treated as single-family homes, allowed
to site without restriction in any residential area.

action step:

The Office of Strategic Planning
must review the full draft of the
Unified Development Ordinance
upon its completion to ensure
that small group homes for up to
eight persons with disabilities are
treated as single-family homes,
without additional requirements,
permits or conditions.

2

concentration of voucher
holders in racially concentrated
areas of poverty

Despite an adequate level of landlords participating
in the Section 8 voucher program and the success
of the Greater Buffalo Community Housing Center
as a voucher mobility program, voucher holders
remain concentrated primarily in less expensive
communities that are more likely to be racially/
ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. This
suggests that the FMR is insufficient to afford a
unit in many neighborhoods within the region,
particularly outside the City of Buffalo.
There seems to be virtually no coordination among
the three agencies administering vouchers across
Erie County. While all three previously crosslisted applicants, this is no longer the case.
Most of the housing discrimination complaints
received by Buffalo’s fair housing officer are
related to tenants’ source of income. This class
is protected within City limits, but there is no way
to force landlords to comply with the Housing
Quality Standards of the Section 8 program, which
effectively provides a loophole for landlords who
do not wish to rent to voucher holders.

action step 1:

The City should work with RACB
and BMHA to determine the issues
underlying the lack of coordination,
seeking ways in which the two
agencies (and possibly Belmont)
can collectively improve and
stabilize the services they provide.

action step 2:

All three voucher administration
agencies should continue to
actively encourage participation in
the voucher mobility program.

action step 3:

All three voucher administration
agencies should adjust payment
standards to match varying market
rent levels across communities or
neighborhoods, so that the ceiling
is lower in lower-cost areas and
higher in more expensive areas.

112

 3

lack of centralized fair
housing administration

The City does not have a staffed fair housing or
human rights commission, which explains the
extent to which it relies on local advocacy groups
to conduct education and outreach as well as
enforcement of fair housing laws.
The fair housing officer should be involved with
the City’s planning and community development
activities and could assist with training and review
in other departments to ensure that Buffalo’s
programs are being carried out in a way that
affirmatively furthers fair housing choice.
HOME’s recent review of the City’s progress in
addressing action steps from the 2004 AI indicated
that record-keeping was unreliable and that the
City’s documents do not always articulate specific
means of advancing equal housing opportunity.

113

action step 1:

The City should consider the
fair housing officer to undertake
additional critical activities, such
as reviewing and commenting
on documents from departments
conducting housing-related work.

action step 2:

The fair housing officer should
initiate a fair housing log to record
activities across City departments
that have the effect of addressing
impediments
or
otherwise
advancing fair housing choice.
This log can form the basis for
reporting achievements in each
year’s CAPER.

4

lack of transit connections
between residents and
employment

The majority of Buffalo residents are within a
half-mile of an existing transit route, making bus
travel within the City relatively easy. However,
transit routes to suburban destinations are often
geared toward express service to the City center,
making them inconvenient for City residents
working outside Buffalo. From an operational
perspective, the footprint of the Niagara Frontier
Transportation Authority’s fixed-route service
area is logical. However, the absence of regular
service to major employment centers outside the
City creates a disconnect between lower-income
residents, jobs and amenities.

action step 1:

The City should continue to
collaborate with NFTA to create
solutions that serve particular
connection needs.

action step 2:

The City should continue to
focus on economic development
activities that will create jobs along
transit nodes and areas accessible
to lower-income residents.

 5

policy document
improvements

The Section 8 Administrative Plans and
Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policies
for BMHA do not include new protected classes
that were added by HUD regulation in 2012.
The City’s Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing
Plan is effective, but could be strengthened
further by adding a description of how monitoring
will occur and a statement of consequences for
non-compliance.

action step 1:

action step 2:

action step 3:

Both BMHA and RACB must update
their policy documents to include
equal opportunity clauses that list
the classes protected within their
jurisdictions, reflecting changes
to HUD program administration
that prohibit discrimination on the
basis of marital status, sexual
orientation or gender identity.

Both BMHA and RACB should
strengthen their Admin Plans
by
adding
an
overarching
policy
regarding
reasonable
accommodations for persons
with disabilities, adding language
accommodation plans for those
with limited English proficiency,
and specifying that reasonable
accommodations will be granted
to allow persons with disabilities
equal opportunity during the
informal review and/or hearing
process.

6

boards and commissions
representation

Though racial minorities are represented on
housing-related boards and commissions at rates
comparable to their population share, only about
one-quarter of members are women. In order
to address the concerns of all segments of the
population, boards appointed by the Mayor and
by organizations such as the Realtors’ association
must actively recruit and maintain membership by
members of the protected classes.

action step 1:

As recommended in the 2004 AI,
the Mayor’s Office should develop
and implement policies and
procedures for selecting qualified
candidates who are representative
of all segments of the community
to serve on the planning and
zoning boards, as well as BMHA
and BURA.

action step 2:

The City should contact the
Buffalo-Niagara Association of
Realtors to emphasize its interest
in ensuring that members of the
protected classes are given equal
opportunity to participate in the
organization’s leadership roles.

The City should update its
Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing
Plan to include a description
of how implementation will be
monitored and consequences for
non-compliance.

114

 Public Sector Impediments:
Market Based

7

limited-english-speaking
population NEEDS

The number of limited-English Spanish speakers
living in Buffalo is sufficient to warrant further
analysis of their access to public programs and
services, under HUD “safe harbor” guidance.
Additionally, the City’s immigrant and refugee
population continues to expand, and this group is
more likely to experience refusal to rent and unfair
treatment and less likely to know their rights. The
City must ensure that this growing population has
equal access to programs, services and housing
opportunity.

action step 1:

115

BURA should conduct a fourfactor analysis to determine the
extent to which its current systems
for interpretation and translation
adequately serve the community,
culminating if necessary in an
official Language Access Plan.
The four-factor analysis is detailed
in the Federal Register dated
January 22, 2007.

8

poor condition of
housing stock

Due to the magnitude of private divestment in
Buffalo’s housing stock and the age of homes,
many of which contain lead-based paint or show
obvious deferred maintenance, a substantial
share of housing in the City is considered to be
substandard, deteriorated or otherwise unsuitable
as a living environment. In many cases, the cost of
rehabilitation required to make units suitable would
far exceed the market value of finished homes,
a fact that further discourages neighborhood
investment. Poor housing condition limits the
choices available to lower-income households,
which are disproportionately represented among
members of the protected classes.

action step 1:

The City should continue to
devote resources to its housing
rehabilitation
program,
with
a focus on balancing the
revitalization of racially/ethnically
concentrated areas with the
expansion of affordable housing
choice elsewhere.

action step 2:

The City should continue to use
targeted demolition as a means
of removing vacant properties
that have a negative impact on
neighborhoods.

action step 3:

The City should review its
comprehensive code enforcement
areas to ensure that they address
problems in racially concentrated
areas of poverty.

action step 4

The City should continue the
active enforcement of its rental
registration program and require
fair housing training of property
owners a condition of the license
to rent.

 9

availability of decent,
affordable rental units

While household income fell 3.3% between 2000
and 2010, median rent climbed 8%. Minimumwage, single-family households and those
depending on SSI cannot afford an apartment
renting at the fair market rate. Due to the lower
median incomes among minorities, these groups
are more likely to be renters and are impacted to
a greater extent by rent price increases that have
outpaced income gains.
In its HOME program, the City allows developers
to drive the site-selection process for affordable
housing projects, with the result that most new
sites have been located in high-poverty areas.

action step 1:

action step 2:

action step 3:

Because developing an affordable
housing set-aside requirement or
inclusionary zoning would likely
make Buffalo less competitive
in attracting private residential
development, the City should use
the regional planning process built
into the Sustainable Communities
Initiative grant to lobby for regional
acceptance of inclusionary zoning
provisions.
The City and/or BMHA should,
where possible, acquire and
maintain the affordability of taxcredit development for which
affordability requirements are set
to expire.
The City should designate priority
areas for new construction in
its HOME funding guidelines
to expand affordable housing
in opportunity areas, perhaps
by awarding bonus points to
proposals creating units outside
of racially concentrated areas
of poverty or by increasing the
HOME subsidy per unit in such
areas.

10

persistence of housing
discrimination

The most common basis cited in housing
discrimination complaints across Buffalo in recent
years was race/color, followed by disability and
familial status. Fewer complaints arise regarding
source-of-income
discrimination
or
unfair
treatment on the basis of sexual orientation or
gender identity, which suggests that community
awareness of these local protections may be
low.
While City law forbids landlords from
discriminating on the basis of source of income,
a reportedly exploited loophole allows landlords
to avoid voucher households by not meeting
housing quality standards.
The inability to collect discrimination test results
and complaints data from HOME to report in the
AI suggests that the City’s subrecipient agreement
with the agency does not require it to routinely
submit this data to the City. However, this data
should factor into the City’s understanding of
current conditions and its formulation of policy.

action step 1:

The City should sustain adequate
funding for fair housing activities
such as education, outreach and
enforcement through the CDBG
program

action step 2:

The City should require its fair
housing service providers to
regularly supply the results of
testing and enforcement activities,
then keep this data on file
internally.

116

 Private Sector Impediment:
Market Based

11

12

private lending
disparities

The supply of affordable housing accessible to
persons with disabilities is severely limited by the
age of the stock and the lack of funds available
to retrofit homes. No grants are available to
assist with retrofitting, only loans. Advocates
stated that even developers receiving subsidy
who are required to incorporate accessibility
features into some units set prices too high for
most impoverished people with disabilities. Erie
County maintains a list of units known to be
accessible, though the list is relatively short, due
to the fact that most homes in the area were built
before accessibility standards were imposed by
law. Advocates reported community resistance to
group homes, though the need for such facilities
persists.

Home ownership in Buffalo is less affordable
to Black and Hispanic households due to their
lower incomes. Far less lending occurs in the
City’s racially concentrated areas of poverty than
in other areas, though it is unclear whether this
is due to the housing market crisis or inability of
interested homebuyers to access credit.

Additionally, stakeholders reported that City
departments need to be more aware of their
obligations to make appropriate accommodations
in programs and public meetings.

action step 1:

The City should support testing
for mortgage discrimination by a
qualified entity in order to more
effectively
target
education,
outreach, referral and enforcement
activities.

action step 2:

The City should coordinate a
loan pool among area lenders to
increase the amount of available
funds while reducing the risk to
any one lender.

action step 3:

The
City’s
Loan
Review
Committee should continue its
active monitoring of the market.

action step 4:

As recommended in the 2004
AI, the City should prohibit home
contractors who have arranged
predatory lending from conducting
business within the City.

action step 1:

action step 2:

action step 3:

action step 4:

117

accessible units for
persons with disabilities

The City should update its public
database of affordable housing to
identify sites with accessible units.
The City’s ADA Coordinator should
consider arranging workshops
for developers and architects
to broaden awareness of the
concepts of universal design.
The ADA Coordinator should either
conduct training for or distribute
educational materials among City
departments to ensure awareness
of accommodation requirements.
BMHA
should
consider
implementing
a
residency
preference for persons with
disabilities.

Blacks and Hispanics had mortgage denial rates
significantly higher than Whites. Over the course
of the three years studied, upper-income Black
and Hispanic households were denied mortgage
loans more often than lower-income White
households. Upper-income Black households
were more also likely to receive a high-cost loan
than lower-income White households.

 '"*3 )064*/( "$5*0/ 1-"/
Goal

Strategies

Responsibility

Target date

OSP

2014

Impediment 1: Barriers to group home development
Remove policy barriers to fair
housing opportunity

Review Unified Development Ordinance to ensure that group homes for up to eight
persons are treated as single-family homes without additional requirements, permits, or
conditions

Impediment 2: Concentration of voucher holders in racially concentrated areas of poverty
Connect voucher holders with
housing beyond racially and
ethnically concentrated LMI areas

Continue to actively encourage participation in voucher mobility program

BURA, BMHA, RAC,
Belmont

Ongoing

Make voucher system more
accessible to target population

Research issues behind lack of coordination among voucher agencies, seek ways to
collectively improve and stabilize services

BURA, BMHA, RAC,
Belmont

2016

Strike balance between expanding
opportunity for voucher holders and
serving as many households as
possible

Complete assessment of payment standards by voucher administration agencies;
recommend adjustments to match market rents by lowering ceiling in low-cost areas
and raising it in high-cost areas

BURA, BMHA, RAC,
Belmont

2016

Adopt regional approach to
addressing problems of racial, ethnic,
and income segregation

Participate actively in fair housing component of One Region Forward

BURA

2015

Impediment 3: Lack of centralized fair housing administration
Increase city's capacity to administer
fair housing activities

Allow Fair Housing Officer to comment on housing-related documents and ensure that
other city programs are run in ways that affirmatively further fair housing.

Fair Housing Officer

2015

Improve city's accountability relative
to fair housing considerations

Initiate fair housing log to record activities across city departments that address
impediments or otherwise advancing fair housing choice; report in CAPER.

Fair Housing Officer

Ongoing

118

 Goal

Strategies

Responsibility

Target date

BURA

Ongoing

Impediment 4: Lack of transit connections to suburban employment centers
Improve connections between city
residents and employment
opportunities

Target economic development activities that cultivate job creation along transit nodes,
and in areas accessible to lower-income residents; collaborate with NFTA to provide
solutions serving particular connection needs.

Impediment 5: Policy document improvements
Remove policy barriers to fair
housing opportunity

Update public housing ACOPs to include equal opportunity clauses listing protected
classes; strengthen Admin Plans by adding policy regarding reasonable
accommodations and specifying that reasonable accommodations will be granted to
allow persons with disabilities equal opportunity during the informal review or hearing
process, and adding language accommodation for those with limited English proficiency

BMHA, RAC

2015

Remove policy barriers to fair
housing opportunity

Update Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan to describe how implementation will be
monitored, and state consequences for non-compliance

Fair Housing Officer

2015

Impediment 6: Boards and commissions representation
Increase extent to which local
decision-making bodies reflect city's
demographic composition

Develop and implement policies and procedures for identifying and selecting qualified
candidates representing all segments of the community to serve on the Planning Board,
Zoning Board of Appeals, BMHA, and BURA

Mayor's Office

Ongoing

Increase extent to which real estate
professionals working in city reflect
city's demographic composition

Contact Buffalo-Niagara Association of Realtors to emphasize city's interest in ensuring
that members of protected classes are given equal opportunity to participate in
leadership roles

OSP

2015

Office of New Americans

2016

Impediment 7: Limited-English-speaking population needs
Ensure that limited-English speakers
are aware of and afforded adequate
access to city programs and services

119

Conduct four-factor analysis (outlined in January 22, 2007 Federal Register) to
determine extent to which current systems reach and serve persons with limited English
skills, resulting in a Language Access Plan if necessary

 Goal

Strategies

Responsibility

Target date

Impediment 8: Poor condition of housing stock
Balance revitalization of racially and
ethnically concentrated LMI areas
with expansion of affordable housing
opportunities elsewhere

Continue to devote resources to housing rehabilitation programs; use targeted
demolition to remove abandoned properties that have negative impacts on
neighborhoods; review code enforcement activities to ensure they address problems in
racially and ethnically concentrated LMI areas; report accomplishments in CAPER

BURA

Ongoing

Hold landlords accountable for
condition of housing units and
requirements under local, state, and
federal fair housing laws

Continue active enforcement of city's rental registration program; consider requiring
property owners to obtain fair housing training as condition of license to rent

BURA

Ongoing

Impediment 9: Availability of decent, affordable rental units
Encourage builders to include
affordable units in new developments,
without negatively impacting city's
ability to compete for projects

Use regional planning process built into One Region Forward initiative to lobby for
regional acceptance of inclusionary zoning provisions

BURA, OSP

2016

Maintain existing inventory of decent,
affordable rental units

Acquire and maintain affordability for tax-credit developments with affordability
requirements set to expire

BURA, BMHA

Ongoing

Direct new affordable housing
opportunities to neighborhoods
outside of racially and ethnically
concentrated LMI areas

Designate priority areas for new construction in HOME funding guidelines; consider
awarding bonus points to proposals creating affordable units outside of racially and
ethnically concentrated LMI areas, or by increasing HOME subsidy per unit in such
areas.

BURA, OSP

Ongoing

Impediment 10: Persistence of housing discrimination
Maintain support for fair housing
education, outreach, testing, and
enforcement

Sustain adequate funding for fair housing activities; report accomplishments in CAPER

BURA

Ongoing

Allow fair housing activities to inform
policy development and program
administration

Require fair housing service providers to regularly supply the results of testing and
enforcement activities; maintain data and report in CAPER

BURA

Ongoing

120

 Goal

Strategies

Responsibility

Target date

Impediment 11: Accessible units for people with disabilities
Increase access to existing
accessible, affordable units

Update and maintain public database of affordable housing to identify sites with
accessible units; consider implementing residency preference for persons with
disabilities

BURA, BMHA

2015

Empower design professionals to
increase compliance of housing stock
with accessibility requirements

Arrange workshops for developers and architects to broaden awareness of universal
design concepts

ADA Coordinator

2016

Ensure that City staff members
provide adequate accommodation for
people with disabilities in program
administration

Conduct training or distribute educational materials among city departments to ensure
awareness of accommodation requirements, particularly in meetings

ADA Coordinator

Ongoing

Impediment 12: Patterns of disparity in private lending
Increase awareness of discriminatory
practices in order to inform policy and
spending priorities

Support mortgage discrimination testing by a qualified entity to more effectively target
outreach, education, referral, and enforcement activities; continue active monitoring of
market by Loan Review Committee

BURA

2017

Increase credit access for members
of protected classes

Coordinate loan pool among area lenders to increase amount of available funds, while
reducing risk to individual lenders

BURA

2017

Establish high standards for lender
behavior

Prohibit home contractors who have arranged predatory lending from conducting
business with city

BURA

2016

121