-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/44124/archive/files/367c172062f8f9f8bf55b51ec63f6de8.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=mNw6UcHJxgcKwMXAr3bDAHfxs6BZzx-Jr1Wm8cpG4d5TRASNyb1PvtELsanvC8quVrIkgPPVVLqAqWm2Coqn-uoi8Sn-eYipDpxCoUxh8XEKi2kxuOicI8%7E7Z1jmInhpVpDYQXLSdCl8ODgmLx-oBGjeInj2czG0258wSKczpX9Qxp3sYcwaT-GP%7Ea6jZTc0JTAYapKP7bQ0eDpTLl%7EdyaAOfh97FsPzpeawRgDbatIsg1s3CcoTC1ipaPM3HAA3xKCLUH8wYxcSbxQgTGOruk44otqHW-7%7EsZ82PXnx9X0V1VhL9ekP%7EpGFCbq3Ul3%7ERdI-inNd%7E0izTs-kYRVFrg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e1cc775c995ed8fd6eea006e80196b4d
PDF Text
Text
APARTMENT
DISCRIMINATIml
IN
BALTIMORE COUNTY
AND
CITY
1977 - 78
FOLLOW-UP TO
1972 APARTMENT AUDIT
published by;
Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc.
32 West 25th Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
(301/243-600])
May,
1978
EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. (BNI) is a private,
non-profit civil rights agency organized in 1959
working for viable interracial communities, fair
housing, and tenants' rights in the Baltimore
Metropolitan area.
One part of BNI's program activity is the handling
of housing discrimination complaints and the monitoring of the local housing industry for compliance
with fair housing laws.
Fair housing IS and HAS BEEN the law of the land
since Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968
and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an 1866 Civil
Rights Act which proclaimed:
All citizens of the United States
shall have the same right, in every
state and territory, as is enjoyed
by whi te ci ti zens thereof to i nheri t,
purchase, lease, sell, hold, and
convey real and personal property.
Therefore, "all racial discrimination, private as
well as public, in the sale or rental of property"
is prohibited.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks not only to the testers who participated in
this apartment audit but also to Paul Knefel, a Vista
Volunteer, who did most of the ground work and helped
see the audit through to completion. Appreciation must
also be noted for the compilation of this report by
Carolyn Boitnott, Testing and Compliance Committee
Chairperson and Don Miller, Associate Oirector of BNI.
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • Page
TESTING:
Purpose •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Method
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1
1
Table I: Geographic Distribution ••••••••••••••••
2
RESULTS:
Surrrnary of
Table II:
Table III:
Table IV:
Resul ts •••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••
2
Difference of Treatment •••••••.••••••
Comparison to the 1972 Audit ••••...•.
Presence of Equal Housing Opportunity
3
Poster ..••..•..••••••.•.•..•
3
CONCLUSION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
4
Corrrnent on National Fair Housing Audit ••••••••••
4
APPENDICES:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Surrrnary & Conclusions of 1972 Audit
Sources of Apartment Lists
Size and Price Range of Apartment
Complexes Tested
Testing Report Form
Difference of Treatment Examples
Map showing Locations of Apartment
Complexes
HUD's Equal Housing Opportunity Poster
3
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APARTMENT DISCRIMINATION
IN BALTIMORE COUNTY AND CITY
1977 - 78
SUMMARY
From October
conducted an
metropolitan
was found in
1977 to April 1978, Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc.
audit of 51 randomly selected apartments in the
area. Overall, a Difference of Treatment of Blacks
39% of the apartment complexes tested.
PURPOSE
This audit was conducted to determine if there has been a decrease in discriminatory treatment against Blacks as reported
in a similar audit conducted by Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc.
in 1972. (Appendix A)
METHOD
Apartment Selection Process--From various sources Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. compiled two separate lists totaling over 650 apartment
complexes. One list contained Baltimore City apartment complexes and
the other, Baltimore County (Appendix B). Eliminated from consideration were those complexes operated or regulated by a government
agency (i.e. public hou sing and HUD subsidized apartment s), those
under 30 units in size, those having a majority Black population,
co-ops, condominiums, and student housing units. Those remaining
on each list were placed in alphabetical order and then numbered
sequential ly. Fifty numbers from each of the two lists were selected at random using a table of random numbers. It was intended that the study would cover these 100 apartment complexes. However, it was found that nearly half of these complexes were not
open on the weekends. By selecting only those apartment complexes
where rental offices are open on weekends the results are possibly
understating the amount of discrimination. Of the 51 complexes,
49 were successfully tested. (Appendix C gives size and price range)
partici~ants--Approximate1y
50 White testers and 40 Black testers
formed 4 and 21 pairs respectively with each pair testing from
one to six complexes.
Testing Procedures--Each apartment complex was assigned to a Black
palr and a Whlte pair of trained testers. Each of these sets was
given identical backgrounds in terms of income, type of apartment,
when desired, and by whom it was to be occupied . Testers visited
the apartment complex within the hour of each other. Immediate1 y
after testing the complex each pair completed a report form to
insure all pertinent information was documented in a comparable
fash i on (Appendix D). With th e exception of two complexes all
tests were completed and counted in this report. The two complexes unsuccessfully tested were not considered becau se in one
instance the pairs inadvertently asked for different types of
apartment units, and in the other one pair was unable to fulfill
its assi gnment.
-
,-
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Geographic Distribution--The geographic distribution of the
developments both by number of complexes and by number of units
(impact) is shown in Table I.
TABLE I
Summary of Geographic Distribution
of 49 completed tests
Apartment
Complexes
Apartment Dwelling
Units
Baltimore County
Baltimore City
31 (63%)
18 (37%)
11 ,013
4,424
(71 %)
( 29%)
Tota 1 :
/0
49 ( 100" )
15,437
(100%)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In the 49 completed tests of apartment complexes four categories
of Difference of Treatment were found: (Appendix E gives some
s pecific examples)
1.
Rental agent displayed a less satisfactory
demeanor (includes amount and manner in which
information was given) toward Black testers.
(l~ by number of complexes).
/o
In two of the
complexes tested, the agent made derogatory
comments about Blacks to the White testers.
2.
Rental agent indicated earlier availabiltiy
to White testers (12% by number of complexes).
3.
Rental agent made economic inquiries of Black
testers and not of White testers (2% by number
of complexes).
4.
Agent showed different apartment units to each
pair and/or gave different addresses of available
apartment units or referred to different apartment comp1exes--raising the question of "racial"
steering within or outside of the apartment complex tested (16% by number of complexes).
Table II shows geographic distribution of Difference of Treatment
combining all four categories above. (Appendix F)
-2-
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
TABLE I I
Summary of Di ffere nce of Treatment
Apartment
Com121exes
Difference of
Treatment
Baltimore County
Baltimore City
31
18
(
(
63%)
37%)
11
8
(35%)
(44%)
Tota 1 :
49
( 100" )
10
19
(39%)
Apartment Dwelling
uni ts (i ml2act l
Difference of
Treatment
Baltimore County
Bal timore City
11 ,013 ( 71 %)
4,424 ( 29" )
10
3,618
2,277
(33%)
( 51 %)
Tota l:
10
15,437 ( 100" )
5,895
(38%)
Table III below shows a comparison between kinds of Difference of
Tr eatment in 1972 and 1978.
TABLE III
Comparison to the '972 Audit
Number of
Com121exes
Number of Apt. Dwelling
uni ts (iml2act)
~
1972
1978
1972
Overa 11 Difference of
Treatment
49"
10
39"
10
53%
38%
Less Satisfactory
Demeanor
Ea r 1i er Avai 1abi 1i ty
Economic Inquiry
Possible racial steering
29"
10
22%
27%
-- *
18"
10
12%
2%
16%
23%
26%
25"
10
21 %
12%
2%
16%
-- *
*Racial steering was not considered in the 1972 Audit.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Presence of the Equal Housing 0l2l2ortunity Sign--Federal law requires
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's EHO poster to be
posted (Appendix G) in all rental and real estate offices. During
the audit testers were asked to check for the presence of the poster.
Table IV shows the degree to which the complexes were in compliance.
-3-
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE IV
Presence of EHO Poster
Baltimore
City
Baltimore
County
Sign posted
No sign
UnknONn
6 ( 33%)
11 ( 61 %)
1 ( 6%)
15
16
(
( 48%)
52%)
( -- )
21
27
1
(
(
(
Total:
18 ( 100" )
/0
31
( 100"/0)
49
/0
( 100" )
Total
43%)
55%)
2%)
CONCLUSION
Difference of Treatment of potential apartment seekers by race is
s till widely practiced in the metropolitan area. HONever, the
degree is somewhat improved--3~ compared with 4~ in 1972. The
/o
/o
Difference of Treatment and/or discriminatory discouragement which
still occurs seems to be more subtle as most Black testers felt
t hey could have obtained an apartment in the complexes tested; it
was only in comparing the treatment and/or information given Blacks
and Whites that the differences were found.
Although difficult to compare because of the different manners in
which they were conducted, this recent BNI audit is not inconsistent
with HUD's release in April of preliminary information on a nationwide audit of discrimination in housing (40 different metropolitan
areas but not the Baltimore area). The preliminary information
from the HUD audit as to apartment testing indicates : 49.4% White
favored response, 30.3% equal treatment and 20 . 3% Black favored
response. HUD subtracted 20.3% from 49.4% to come up with a
29.1 % level of discrimination. BNI used extensive lists of apartment complexes, eliminating predominately Black complexes from its
audit base, while HUD tested apartment complexes that advertised.
~I found only one incident of a Black favored response.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Foo tnote to National Fair Housing Audit:
A national audit of real estate offices and apartment complexe s
was conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
f r om June to July 1977, in 40 metropolitan areas across the country
at a cost of one million dollars with 300 Black and 300 White teste r s participating. Some 1609 tests were made of rental properties
and 1655 tests of sale housing. This represents HUD's preliminary
r es ult s . HUD is in the process of computerizing the results and
ove r th e next six months will release specific reports covering
varying aspects of the audit.
-4-
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1972 Apartment Audit
Summary
Under the auspices of Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc., a study
was conducted in February and March, 1972 to evaluate racial discrimination as practiced by apartment developments in the Baltimore
Metropolitan Area. A random selection of 93 developments which included a wide range of locations, sizes and rental costs was tested
by 45 bi-racial teams. These tests indicated that Blacks will encounter in the total of all categories tested, even prior to making
an application, a pattern of discriminatory discouragement 45 to 55
per cent of the time. The study correlates these various forms of
discrimination with location, size and rental.
Conclusion
Discrimination exists and is practiced extensively among rental
agents throughout the Baltimore Metropolitan Area. Discrimination is
both overt and subtle; varies with economic level, development size
and geographic location; and represents violations of the spirit if
not the letter of Federal and local law. On the basis of this sample
the report indicates that the Black person who atempts to rent a unit
in a predominatly White apartment complex has 1 chance out of 2 in the
City, and 3 chances out of 5 in the County, of encountering discriminatory discouragement. "Seeing" an apartment is only the first step toward occupancy. Further opportunity to discriminate is possible in the
processing of the application.
�I
I
I
APPENDIX B
SOURCES OF BALTIMORE COUNTY AND CITY
APARTMENT COMPLEX LISTS
1.
Baltimore City and Baltimore County
Stewart Directories, 1977 Edition
2.
Metropo litan Baltimore Apartment and
New Home Guide, May-July, 1977
3.
Baltimore Metropolitan Area Telephone
Directory, November, 1977
4.
Baltimore City Yellow Pages, June, 1977
I
5.
Baltimore Suburban East and West
Telephone Directory, February, 1977
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.
Baltimore County Office of Planning
Zoning
I
I
I
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
SIZE AND PRICE RANGE OF APARTMENT
COMPLEXES TESTED
Area
No. of Dwell i ng
Units per Complex
Price for 2
Bedroom Unit
Bi3ltimore County
74 - 876
$181 - 347
Baltimore City
80 - 667
$174 - 410
74 - 876 uni ts
$174 - 410
Over all
�~J,1. j1!f';. P'
l':t: .
·:F.:r. -! fV
~f'~.n(
i<;.
"' l:~a
J]
i :. rt,
lfl,.·.·!
2.llu=or • • ~,J rll.nd 111U
14J·6007
! INS1D~
RENTAl. ('fn'::f> ]
1 . HUle em;.l:Jlle.~(.) "".'),:) Ilcl~ 110\1:
E
rES r 1 N C
1...
~
£ CO R 0
volun t eered
~
...,
1...
o
0-
Apt
loc.t~
In :
0 1 ArrJ. ... J I
Q)
0:
0>
C
.~
Her f ord
Howu'd
. . Co
1':'_
CJtv
•• lto. CO .
.:.:. (;1 7 !J1 1t :
Oth.r
,. Describe rece ption upon .nterJng eh. ottl ~ and/ or ~.l :
Gfflce
Aen~J
. ~dr" .
,
rentAl
J.
1"'. "';-0/ ollie. .t tnou..,. not 011 aJt.
Ict.-:It Iwr.
. w.:
:~~=~£7
__________________________________________________
11
0//1«
co.pJ •• ,
I ...., ____________________________________
UiJr . . . _____ _ ___
~r
of (:0#11'1 .. Jnter •• te I n
I
J . we. tll.-r., e lIOdel ept to N .een:
"co _______
- - - - - - - '"
-----
"co _______
rtJf'FaS l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Apt. ,
.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ '"
_ _ __
H_ ...... _
_ ___
Ojd
e
......
e
Z
UJ
a.
a.
I.
1.
1I.~de.crJ N
...
. . . s .odel spt.
vhet vs. . . .n1
Ha.e rhono _ _ _ __
Work Phon. _ _ _ __
of .
X
~
It
Wo rk rhotNI ____ __
..,
roo
cqu.1 Hou.Jttg OpportunJtloi' po.C#'T ve. _ (v •• I'lo)C ___, ~:.~. : ! "....
d •• c r J N vM re J c v•• .post.d and Jt In e -~IMrnC or L"OlVpJcJ06P- ;J_.J
MUD'.
"'I'" 01 -"e.
~
Apt
to reqwU. ____________________
t. w.nted __________________________________________________
occvpJed brill __________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
I.
Apt. CD k
••
1.a:tIU _/01. tAt.,
_j I'
<[
{lbte - .,.trente t ""~III •• l~uJr. "'hltlV •• l.c!!'.
hfor. t • ••• • to ftqu.,l the IIIOntlv rent.}
IAPARTH tHT AVAILABILITY
I
IlUJll~D t
.~..,.,
tilt.
eve,-v 1 w. .~
eo.bJt-'
II} l ' SIr.;U
l~
:'::::::::~.=.:.:'~'::::::::::
,____
1 , HurnlMr of .pu snd edduu of .pt. sve J lAb ~ e and det .. of . ,'.,U.&!>,UJty:
St.rHt A!dr_ ...
T\' ptt
'Ie.,. $, _ _ _ _ __
IIIonthly .Rsce
of Apt
GIlt MJrtlh
•• eYe",
1
......u , ____
v··,. ,
,. Of the spU s.,s.ilsb1 •• o r ~ng s .,sHAbl., s • • tat-.;f
.,.ro ectuelly . . .n ~ t.'ou1
"'/ut ..... t.~e:,. condJtion'
sbo_. wlUc::b
~
r..
I I ~ . d_~rJ " eAe -nl.", _
..-1
j'N~"
ta. . ' " . -
Jl\IC'h.~•
..nv
n/.r~
t·,
C.,IOII"_lt\ll.
I'. ",,"'..'M,
~""1"AI.
~.
,/ft'f NUUtThlfl
I
wng'tb of Jor ••• __________________
1 . ~rJt t.' ".po.Jt: J.
I i. ,.,... r
, ,. ...1.1 ,,......., .
would be ~.pt . .l . ;ICA sppJ Jc.cJon :
J . u tlHcJ ... sr.
the
e st i ~ t ed
" 1l""·',lIr. ,,,
_(.r.
oan~:v
,w ,.i: .."r,,:
(I t 10' I ' thl
, ... ·.·I",VOl " ' III".,
... ~ '
:1. 11''', . .;J.u.. .a.C
Mt_' " "dud'" In nMC .
co.t. ______________
,'",.
...
\.,-
.",.
No,'
,'It,'
:t not ~:IMI"
~ . . c ....-c
u.
,....c w:Mt
t-
�....,
c
o
I
~.:ts:lCAS AS~
Did agent -.k qu. . eJon.
IT .L:01:I'f
r~.rdlng
'lour
f~lW
.1z •• pl.ce and
OTHIIf
l~ o~ .-pJoy~t •
u
~
and
_oil'
•• lary, oth.r~ I f It'" .t.t ....Me If• •
!IO'I g • .,..
flf no qu •• tlon c /'t«1c here _ _,
E
L.
~
....,
L.
o
a.
cr
Av.1J.~1.'
...
ort.r~
No
"PO~ ,,";II . . t
No
1 . •".lne•• C.r.
--
4i
r.calved
Ol
C
(Attac h card to t.ILb fora)
....
.~
VI
6e.e.
4i
ill
t-
""'t
llJfor..tJ.on
ItO J.AfO~UOll
flU
ottnM
bv
ott.u4 cIwci IN,..
ag.nt w1thout wou .u.tJII9.
----1
J. Dld .g.nt •• Ie tor vour n... ,
ro.
addr • •• r
r ••
r ..
.....
Cl
,
..,
..,
...
4. OTIIU CO/UaIl1'S,
x
.....
Cl
z
w
!1CSTDI AST-ZD
a..
a..
<I
_...", t,leatlJV .,., COUrt.o.M'
_"j..,J• .."
CDurt _ _
__ I'oJlte but not owrJv 11J..,wU"
ODDJ
.~
d l et.nt
,..,r.on.JJw
and
..cr.
q~rw4
k t or. . .
NUl 1. eN. 10,. 01 J_ cMt
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E
DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT
(Some Examples)
- White team told of an apartment available on December 1.
Black team told that nothing was available and the agent
suggested they call back and check in December.
- White team was shown vacant apartment and agent made derogatory comments about Blacks. Black team was not shown
vacant apartment.
- White team was shown vacant apartment and name was taken
by agent. Black team was not shown vacant apartment and
name was not taken.
- White team was told nothing was available in garden type
apartment, but that there was a vacancy in the high-rise.
Black team was told of availability in garden type; the
high-rise was only mentioned after a White .person inquired
during the Black team's visit.
- White team was told of availability, no questions were
asked about income and no referrals were made to other
complexes. Black team was given a later availability date ,
and was asked about income and told they might want to
check at another named complex.
- No apartment was available for either team, however, the
White team was told that they maintained a lon~ waiting
list which allowed them to pick and choose thelr tenants.
The agent also referred to other complexes which allowed
all sorts of people in - "drug addicts, Blacks, Chinese."
�APPENDIX F
49 Apartment Complexes Tested
TimooIiIm
--
\
_...
)( ®
)( X
@
X
N
I
Glen Ik.nie
CODE:
QD=
X
Difference of Treatment, i.e. discrimination
= no discrimination
�APPE N X G
DI
I
HUD's EHO POSTER
I
I
I
EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
I
We Do Business in Accordance With the
I
Federal Fair Housing Law
I
(Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,as Amended by
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974)
I
I IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
ANY PERSON BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR,
I
RELIGION, SEX, OR NA TIONAL ORIGIN .
I
• In the sale or rental of housing or residential lots
• In advertising the sale or rental of housing
I
• In the financing of housing
I
• In the provision of real estate brokerage services
I
Blockbusting is also illegal
I
An aggrieved person may file a complaint of a housing discrimination act with the:
I
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVElOPMENT
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
I
Washington, D.C. 20410
I
I
HUD-'21 .1 17f 75) P,.. io" •• dltlon, Gr ••"$OI.t.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Discrimination in housing
Nonprofit organizations
Citizens' associations
Baltimore Metropolitan Area (Md.)
African Americans
Housing
Baltimore (Md.)
Community organization
Reports
Correspondence
Newsletters
Description
An account of the resource
This exhibit provides an introduction to the work of Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. (BNI) around issues of racial integration in housing and tenants' rights from the 1950s to the 2000s.
Established in 1958, Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. was formed to promote an open housing market and viable integrated neighborhoods in the Baltimore area. It was established by several neighborhood associations and supported by civic organizations like the Greater Baltimore Committee. The early focus of the organization was to obtain open housing and stable neighborhoods during a period of widespread white flight and blockbusting in Baltimore City. Through education and advocacy, it sought to counter racial prejudice, to fight discrimination in the real estate industry, and to combat neighborhood deterioration resulting from segregated housing. More recently, BNI has focused on tenant-landlord relations and renters' rights.
The Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. (BNI) collection at the University of Baltimore consists of 22 linear inches of archival records, which are described in an online collection database. The complete collection has also been digitized at the folder level and is also available in the collection database. For this exhibit, 32 documents have been selected from the complete collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
<a href="https://langsdale.ubalt.edu/special-collections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Special Collections & Archives, University of Baltimore</a>
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://archivesspace.ubalt.edu/repositories/2/resources/14" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Baltimore Neighborhoods, Incorporated Records, UB Special Collections & Archives</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
<a href="https://langsdale.ubalt.edu/special-collections/">University of Baltimore Special Collections & Archives</a>
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
circa 1958-2009
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
This material may be quoted or reproduced for personal and educational purposes without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given. When crediting the use of portions from this site or materials within that are copyrighted by us, please use the citation: "Used with permission of the University of Baltimore Special Collections & Archvies." Any commercial use of this material is prohibited without prior permission from the Special Collections & Archives, University of Baltimore. Commercial requests for use of the images or related text must be submitted in writing to: Special Collections & Archives, University of Baltimore, H. Mebane Turner Learning Commons, 1415 Maryland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21201
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
text/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
R0015-BNI
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
2019-09
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
32 items
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Apartment Discrimination in Baltimore County and City, 1977-78
Description
An account of the resource
A follow-up report to the 1972 Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. apartment audit
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1978-05
Subject
The topic of the resource
Baltimore Metropolitan Area (Md.)
Discrimination in housing
Race discrimination
Rental housing
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
University of Baltimore Special Collections & Archives
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
bni06.01.02a
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Baltimore Neighborhoods, Incorporated Records (R0015-BNI), series VI, box 1, folder 2, Special Collections & Archives, University of Baltimore
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Use of this digital material is governed by U.S. copyright law. The University of Baltimore Special Collections and Archives makes digital surrogates of collections accessible if they are in the public domain, the rights are owned by the University of Baltimore, the Special Collections and Archives has permission to make them accessible, or there are no known restrictions on use. Due to the nature of archival collections, rights information is not always discernible. The Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any rights owners wishing to provide accurate information. Upon request, material will be removed from view while a rights issue is addressed. Contact the Special Collections and Archives for more information regarding this image.
Baltimore Metropolitan Area (Md.)
Discrimination in housing
Race discrimination
Rental housing