But, here is part of the problem….

HUD says one thing, different Realtor associations say another thing, and brokers within those associations can have their own rules.

My own (former) broker would not allow the use of descriptive text such as “within walking distance”, “walk-in closet”, or even “family room”.

Those terms may not violate Fair Housing laws, but they did violate my broker’s rules (silly as those rules may be). So while it may be “perfectly acceptable” to HUD to say “within walking distance” agents need to also keep in mind their state, local and brokerage rules and regs as well.

Nice blog by the way! I’ve added you to my ever-growing list of Arizona real estate blogs. Please stop by Phoenix Real Estate Guy if you get a chance!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE, don’t repeat such nonsense. To do so allows this intellectual garbage to live on ends up taking otherwise bright, capable and pretty well adjusted real estate folks on the path that just continues to perpetrate this dribble and live among the myth-informed.

Way back in the early to mid 1990’s, one such fair housing word list published by the Arizona Association of REALTORS did have that phrase on it as a “Don’t Use”. It was dropped shortly thereafter (as was much else) from the list, but the damage was done.

In January of 1995, the “Achtenberg memo” (named for HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing at the time, Roberta Achtenberg), came out as an attempt to basically tell people to quit wasting HUD’s time with such things and instead to wise up, use common sense and stop the insanity that was created among some by these word lists.

Although the original word lists were probably prepared with good intentions, they have instead caused more angry sentiment from those in the business and fodder for feelings of political correctness run amok.

Again, the Achtenberg memo states that common phrases describing real estate or areas, such as “walking distance to”, do not violate the Fair Housing laws. See the memo at:
http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=hud_resources_hudguid2

Otherwise–keep up the OUTSTANDING BLOGGING!

The Dayton, OH region (my old stomping grounds!) put out a fair housing advertising word and phrase list: http://www.mvfairhousing.com/pdfs/ad-word-list.pdf

Note that they say to use caution with the phrase “within walking distance,” but do not prohibit it’s use.

Also, here is an interesting forum discussion on this topic: http://www.city-data.com/forum/real-estate/212505-steering-v-client-request-4.html
Looks like people go both ways on this. I would just recommend, as they do, to be more objective and descriptive, rather than using the subjective phrase “within walking distance.”

It’s a very interesting question to ask and perhaps could have a damaging effect on smart growth marketing by RE agents.

However, I think not being able to call your community walkable is taking it too far. Many of my website visitors have disabilities and are looking for walkable places–even though they are not physically able to walk. They know that in many places the term walkable implies that it’s also accessible for those with disabilities. If we cannot provide that information, the discrimination laws are more detrimental than helpful to the cause.

I think this is a topic I need to look into a bit since it’s something I’m going to be dealing with more in the future.

It’s kinda creepy.

(and for the most part, my works seems to have disappeared from the internet. The only remnant I see is the second to last paper on this page, and that only summarizes how we used the results in a larger project.)