4
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Wednesday, October 11, 1967
Lawrence housing ordinance: Fair or foul?
continued from page 1
Proposed by the Lawrence Human Relations Commission which is "representative of all segments of the population," the Lawrence ordinance prohibits "discriminatory practices in the renting, leasing, sale, financing or showing and advertising of dwelling units, commercial units or real property."
Boarding houses exempt
Exempt from the ordinance are bona fide religious institutions and duplexes and boarding houses where the owner resides along with his tenants. To qualify, a boarding house must have five tenants or less.
What these exemptions mean is that an owner can be as discriminatory as he pleases if he has to live under the same roof with his tenants. Illogical though this may seem in a bill to combat discrimination, the Lawrence city fathers deemed it politically expedient.
The Lawrence open housing ordinance is treated like any other ordinance—complaints are filed with the city attorney and investigated by the police department.
This method of investigation was written into the ordinance for two reasons.
- First, having the ordinance
Officials to make insurance study
TOPEKA—Officials of the Department of Administration and the Attorney General's Office will meet Thursday to determine whether insurance contracts for state institutions should be awarded on a bid basis.
Director Terry Scanlon of the Department of Administration reported he had negotiated four insurance contracts for $33,917, which was $4,245 less than a year ago.
However, Asst. Atty, Gen. Robert Hoffman said he believed the insurances should be purchased on a bid basis.
Atty. Gen. Robert C. Londerholm said, "This is something that needs to be clarified. I think we should explore where we stand on this."
The point of contention, he said, is whether insurance contracts can be negotiated or let on bids or whether legislation to clarify the law is needed.
administered directly through the city attorney's office rather than through the Human Relations Commission gives it the "get tough" ring which local civil rights leaders demanded.
- Secondly, the Lawrence commissioners felt the city attorney would be less likely than the Human Relations Commission to harass owners on bogus complaints from professional "spotters" with no intention of buying or renting.
Receives wide spread support
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Lawrence ordinance is the support it received from the business and professional communities. The law was developed and passed quietly without raucous complaints from local civil rights groups or KU's various crusading organizations.
In fact, some of the strongest support came from the University administration.
Clark Coan, dean of foreign students, said:
"Last year the University enrolled over 600 foreign students from 92 nations of the world. It would be unfair for me to state that there have been no instances of local discrimination against dark-skinned foreign students over the years.
"It would seem quite appropriate for a community such as Lawrence to be completely sure that its right foot is placed progressively forward when it has these international visitors in its midst."
Provost adds comments
Provost James R. Surface concurred with Coan and added:
"Many of the kinds of faculty members the University seeks to attract and to retain prefer to live and work in a community that does not condone the types of discriminatory practices which this ordinance seeks to prohibit."
Members of the Human Relations Commission and city commissioners admit in retrospect that one of the main purposes of the ordinance was to improve the "morale" of the Negro community as well as enhancing Lawrence's image.
This goal apparently has been achieved.
"We are satisfied with the ordinance—it is what we wanted," said John Spearman, member of the Lawrence Human Relations Commission and a leader in the Negro community.
Ralctors oppose ordinance The only organized opposition
his house or rent to a member of a minority group. Second, it would also be a criminal offense for a member of a minority group to harass that same owner into selling or renting against his wishes."
"The realtors of the city of Lawrence do not feel that there are discriminatory practices in the sale, leasing or advertising of the real estate in the city of Lawrence.
Don Hults, an attorney representing the Lawrence Realtors, summed up the opposition to the act before its passage:
to the ordinance came from the Lawrence Board of Realtors who claimed they were caught in the middle since they only carried out the wishes of their clients. They claimed they could be arrested and fined for following the instructions of their clients—which they could.
The dust has not yet settled in Lawrence. Proponents of the newly-passed ordinance admit openly that it is not the answer to all their problems, but add that even if the act doesn't completely alleviate discrimination, the boost in morale it gave the Negro community and the improvement of the city's image were worth it.
"Any time legislation is enacted . . . there should be certain benefits obtained for certain citizens and there will be certain limitations placed upon other citizens. We do not feel that any particular benefits will be obtained for anybody by the passage of this act, and we definitely feel that all individual property owners' rights and the right of the real estate profession to conduct its business will be curtailed, harassed and restricted."
Lawrence Board of Realtors President Rawleigh Zilliox is opposed to the law because he said it only insures the right of the buyer or renter. He insists that there is a need for a "willing buyer-willing seller" law that will protect both parties of the transaction.
Opponents admit there is a problem and that they aren't prepared to suggest a solution. However, they stick to their claim that the act will do more harm than good because it "sells out" basic property rights to appease a minority.
"Lawrence has problem"
"I would favor an ordinance that made it a criminal offense to harass the parties involved in a real estate transaction. Now it is a criminal offense to 'discriminate' and this is strictly a matter of judgment as to what the word means in the context of the ordinance.
"I think Lawrence has a problem in the area of fair housing—just as all other cities do," Zilliox said. "Put I don't think this ordinance is the answer. It only deals with one side of the problem.
"A harassment ordinance, as opposed to a discrimination ordinance, would protect the rights of both sides. First, it would be a criminal offense for a neighbor, for example, to harass or intimidate a man who wanted to sell
As is stands. Lawrence has the toughest fair housing rule in the state and one of the toughest in the nation. But it is a law which many residents and students are unaware of and it still awaits a test.