Most fair housing advocates maintain that integration is a core aim of the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA). They contend that to achieve that integration, affordable housing must be sited in predominantly white, affluent areas. These advocates often cite legislative sponsors such as Senator Edmund Muskie, who declared that the aim of the FHA was not to provide a revitalized model city area or “golden ghetto” as the solution to the plight of African Americans. Courts have tended to agree.

Challenging this orthodoxy, this Article argues that community development—and not just integration—should be deemed a legitimate tactic under the FHA for redressing the harms of segregation. It asserts that legislative history is of limited utility in resolving current debates on remedial tactics because liberal civil rights advocates of the 1960s were operating under a “perpetrator perspective,” viewing racial discrimination solely as the misguided conduct of individual actors rather than as a form of structural injustice. Taking the perspective of the victim rather than the perpetrator reveals that the preeminent purpose of the FHA was to expand the housing options that are available to historically oppressed populations.

Combining insights from textualism, the evolution of antidiscrimination doctrine, and critical legal theory, this Article excavates choice—free of interlocking race and class constraints—as the FHA’s chief concern. This approach sheds new light on the federal government’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing with clear implications for both the role of revitalization initiatives in urban planning as well as the operation of the Housing Choice Voucher program.

* Associate Professor at Northeastern University within the School of Law and the D’Amore-McKim School of Business. J.D., Columbia Law School; B.A., College of the Holy Cross. The author thanks Professors Greg Alexander, Lisa Alexander, Margaret Burnham, Henry Chambers Jr., Rashmi Dyal-Chand, Anika Singh Lemar, Kristin Madison, Audrey McFarlane, Aman McLeod, Meghan Morris, Rachel Rosenbloom, Joe Singer, and Laura Underkuffler for their helpful comments. Additional appreciation is owed to the organizers, participants, and facilitators of the Association for Law, Property, and Society 13th Annual Meeting at Southampton University in May 2023, the virtual Progressive Property Workshop in May 2023, and the Langston Scholars Workshop at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in June 2024. The feedback on this project through those venues was instrumental. Special thanks to the Center for Law, Equity, and Race (CLEAR) for financial and scholarly support as a faculty fellow. Finally, a tremendous debt of gratitude is also due to the editorial staff of the Stanford Law Review. This Article is dedicated to persons who are current or former residents of public housing, particularly Pinnacle Heights (PHP), Corbin Heights, Oval Grove formerly known as Malikowski Circle (“The Circle”), and Mount Pleasant (“Hilltop” or “The 7714”) of New Britain, Connecticut. All errors, missteps, and oversights are the author’s own.