Compliant communication requires an awareness and commitment to working in a way that doesn’t unintentionally recreate barriers, writes Julia Lachey Israel.
Buyers ask a simple question: “Is this a safe area?”
Real estate professionals have been trained for years to pause, pivot, and proceed with caution. In fact, I often trained my agents to pause. Not because the question isn’t right, but because the answer is never simple.
Now, with recent guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the conversation is shifting again. Investigators were told that providing information about crime statistics or school ratings does not automatically violate the Fair Housing Act.
At first glance, this feels like clarity or even relief. But to be honest, this is not a question of whether or not you can share information. What matters is whether we understand the weight of how that information is delivered.
Rather than setting standards, the law sets lower limits.
The Fair Housing Act has always made it clear that real estate professionals cannot steer clients based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, or familial status. HUD has made clear that sharing objective data such as crime statistics, school ratings, and public records is not inherently discriminatory. The problem is intent. That distinction is important.
However, regulatory compliance is by no means the highest standard in our industry. That’s the bare minimum. The real question is not whether something is allowed, but whether it contributes to fair and equitable access to housing.
data is not neutral
crime statistics. School evaluation. Neighborhood “score”. We often treat these as objective truths. it’s not. These are shaped by historical policy decisions, patterns of investment and disinvestment, enforcement practices, and economic inequality. They do not exist in a vacuum.
Presenting this data without context risks reinforcing the very disparities that the Fair Housing Act was intended to address. This is where the conversation gets uncomfortable, but necessary.
In an attempt to avoid violations, our industry has sometimes treated conversations about “safety” as inherently associated with protected classes. But that assumption itself reveals something deeper. Because if discussing crime is immediately interpreted as distancing from communities of color, what underlying beliefs about those communities are we reinforcing?
The purpose is not to suggest that people of color are inherently associated with crime or dangerous environments. In fact, it’s the very narrative designed to destroy fair housing laws.
This moment offers an opportunity to separate people from place-based data and historical biases from current decision-making, but only if we address it with intention. If we get this transition right, we can move away from coded language and toward more transparent and accountable conversations without perpetuating harmful assumptions.
But that only happens if we do it intentionally. Without that intention, the same story will not disappear. They just appear in more subtle ways.
This does not limit the information
We want to be clear: Clients have a right to access information. They should be empowered to make informed decisions about where they live. However, access to information and responsible provision of information are not the same thing.
This is not a debate between transparency and compliance. It’s about discipline, the discipline of how to source information, present information, and separate data from personal interpretation. Because the moment we move from “this is the data” to “this is what it means,” we step into the realm of patterns of racism that have long formed in this country.
What does responsible practice actually look like?
If the rules evolve, our standards should evolve with them. Responsible agents don’t avoid conversation. They handle it clearly and consistently. It looks like this:
Provide all clients with the same third-party resources Avoid subjective terms like “good,” “bad,” or “safe” Encourage clients to define what matters most to them Don’t personalize it and stay rooted in facts
It’s not about saying less. That’s better said.
Different perspectives, common goals
Some experts believe this guidance will restore needed transparency. Some are concerned about the potential for harm. Both perspectives are worth their space, as most people in this industry are inherently trying to do the right thing for their customers.
But this is where we must come together. All customers deserve fair and equitable access to housing, free from prejudice, intentional or unintentional. It’s not a political position. It’s a professional responsibility.
what you need at this moment
As a matter of fact, the rules are subject to change. Interpretations may evolve. Depending on who leads the conversation, policies can change. However, the responsibilities of real estate professionals remain the same.
We are guides, not gatekeepers. We are participants in a system that has historically determined our access to wealth, stability, and opportunity. It requires more than compliance. It requires an awareness and commitment to work in a way that does not unintentionally reproduce the very barriers we claim to be removing.
Because in real estate, deals aren’t just determined by how we participate in the conversation. That creates a community.
In addition to hosting the real estate podcast The Color of Money, Julia Lachey Israel advises, trains, and coaches leaders, team members, and agents to recognize and address diversity, equity, and inclusion opportunities and challenges.
