April 10,2007
Page 2
and have been directly affected by crime free housing programs. We recognize that the
issue of crime free housing is multifaceted and that crime free programs serve a necessary
purpose in today's society. In most instances, people who commit crimes are not
protected by fair housing laws. However, as a result of our public hearings and after
consideration of the issue, the Board is concerned that civil rights violations may arise
due to the implementation of crime free housing programs.
In particular, we are concerned that crime free programs could potentially be used
as pretext for underlying discriminatory actions on the part of owners, property managers
and homeowners' associations. In a situation where a landlord or property manager may
be contemplating a discriminatory eviction or other housing practice, a minor violation of
a crime free lease addendum could be cited by the landlord as the "true" reason for the
action.
Additionally, several housing industry speakers indicated that they believe the fair
housing laws require them to treat everyone equally when screening applicants or
enforcing crime free lease addendums. The Board encourages the housing industry to be
mindful of the reasonable accommodation provisions ofthe Arizona and Federal Fair
Housing Acts when screening potential applicants and otherwise implementing crime free
housing programs. For example, persons with serious mental illnesses may have a higher
incidence of nonviolent "survival crimes" related to periods of homelessness, such as
loitering andpublic urination. These people may also be more vulnerable to interaction
with undesirable people on the property and may lose their housing due to crime free
lease addendum provisions that hold tenants liable for the actions of guests and other
third parties with whom they associate. The fair housing laws protect individuals with
mental disabilities unless they pose a direct threat after attempted application of all
available reasonable accommodations.
Crime free programs may also have a disparate impact on women and families
with children who are victims of domestic violence. Such vulnerable people could lose
their housing if a domestic violence incident occurs on the property or the abuser returns
without the tenant's knowledge or permission.
Finally, the Board is concerned about the potential disparate impact of crime free
housing programs on certain racial and ethnic minority groupswho represent a
disproportionately high percentage of people with criminal backgrounds. At one forum
the Board received information that as of 2002, the crime free housing programs used by
the City of Phoenix alone placed 186rental properties with 129,000rental units
effectively off limits for any felon who had a criminal conviction in the past five years.
Other attendees stated that they have been barred from rental housing indefinitely due to
criminal convictions.
The Board recognizes that there are challenges in properly balancing the
legitimate housing needs of individuals with those of landlords and managers who are
making eligibility determinations about individuals seeking housing while also