LEGALIZED RACISM IN NEW YORK REAL ESTATE

A small strip of Georgian style houses in Riverdale, N.Y. was once the province of Whites only. The houses located on Post Road between 251st. and Lakeview. Although two of the houses are now owned by African Americans, the restrictive covenant clause remains in the deed. It states that non Caucasians cannot reside in the neighborhood except domestics. And that the houses cannot be sold to non Whites. A sad reminder of racial discrimination not only in Riverdale but also Westchester county.

TURF, Restrictive Covenants Stubbornly Stay on the Books

By MOTOKO RICH (New York Times)
Published: April 21, 2005

Wording that is no longer legal -- but lingers in an old deed -- led the owner of a house in Richmond, Va., to turn away buyers like James and Nealie Pitts. Ms. Pitts has joined a housing discrimination suit against the owner. Outdated covenants have stirred criticism among homeowners like Dr. Sandra Stites, with her husband, Dr. Steven Stites, , and Marsha Ramsey, l. An African-American was turned away by the seller of a house in Richmond, Va., who said he was bound by rules to sell to whites only.

Such an explanation did not satisfy Marsha Ramsey, who owns a house in one of the associations managed by Mr. Sheets.
Last summer Ms. Ramsey asked to see the covenants because she was considering installing a pool. As she flipped through them, she recalled, ''my heart just kind of stopped'' at a section headed in bold print: ''Ownership by Negroes Prohibited.''

Ms. Ramsey, who is white, called Mr. Sheets, who told her the clauses could not be removed without the approval of her neighbors. ''You think, my God, this is 2005,'' she said, ''and we have to have people sign to get verbiage taken out that's already illegal?'' The Missouri bill would authorize homeowner association boards to remove the clauses without a majority vote among residents.

In Westchester County, N.Y., where restrictive clauses in deeds were once commonplace, some title companies simply suppress them during title searches. ''If we see a racially restrictive covenant, we wouldn't even show it to the buyer,'' said Michael Berey, a senior vice president at First American Title Insurance Company of New York, which issued 38,152 title policies last year.

While recently researching the title on a house in Chappaqua, Alan Lichtenstein, a real estate lawyer, unearthed a covenant saying, ''No persons of any race other than the Caucasian race shall use or occupy any buildings or lot.'' A title company had redacted it, but it was still on file at the county recorder's office.

Once the clauses are removed, it is important to keep a historic record of them, said Sandra Stites, an obstetrician who lives in a Kansas City house governed by covenants containing racist language. ''We know this horrific history existed, and it should never have happened and it should never happen again,'' she said.

Dr. Stites, who is African-American, said she wants her three children to understand their country's past. ''If we're not aware that this did happen, we could go backwards,'' she said.
Sometimes even if the language is removed, its legacy endures. The racist clause in the original deed to Mr. Matthews's house did not appear in the deed that conveyed the property to him, but in his testimony before the Virginia Fair Housing Board he said his neighbors told him the area was zoned ''for whites only.''

Ms. Pitts said she had yet to recover from the pain of her encounter with Mr. Matthews in his front yard three years ago. She said she had seen a doctor because of stress-related ailments, agonizing over the slow progress of an investigation by the Fair Housing Board. ''I really was not sure if anyone was going to listen to me,'' Ms. Pitts said during an intermission at a board hearing on April 13.

At that hearing, Ms. Pitts learned that the state attorney general's office had offered to settle its case against Mr. Matthews by sending him for two hours of fair housing training in Richmond.
Ms. Pitts said she was stunned by the settlement proposal. ''It's less than a slap on the wrist,'' she said. ''It takes me to the back of the bus,'' she added. ''Again, I'm looking at the white and colored water fountains.''

The board voted, 7 to 2, to reject the settlement. The case will proceed in circuit court in Chesterfield County.
Mr. Matthews, a 67-year-old retired construction worker who pulled his house off the market shortly after Ms. Pitts filed her complaint, refused to comment. In a brief conversation outside his home last week, he said, ''I don't want nothing about what I say in the newspaper.'' His lawyer, Robert B. Brown, reached by telephone, said he was withdrawing from the case.

Although Ms. Pitts was able to move her son and his family into a rental property she and her husband, James, own, she said that perhaps the most fitting conclusion would be for Mr. Matthews to simply give his house to her. ''I'd like to integrate the neighborhood,'' she said.