What I Wish I Could Have Said
Dr. Junia Howell, eruka’s founder, testifying for the Appraisal Subcommittee on January 24, 2023.
By Junia Howell | February 6, 2023
3 minute read
The train’s wheels ground to a stop. I glanced at my phone. I had just enough time to briskly walk the two miles from Union Station to where I was testifying on Capitol Hill in front of the Appraisal Subcommittee regarding my research on racial inequality in home values.
I quickly wove through the morning commuters and exited into the crisp January air. Getting my bearings, I headed west on E Street, allowing the smells and sights of the street to calm my nerves. Morning walks through urban cores never fail to put me at ease.
As I walked, I rehearsed my oral testimony, hoping no one would notice I was talking to myself. I would only have 5 minutes to summarize my 19-page written testimony, so I needed to get every word as close to my script as possible—no time to look down or ad lib unnecessary verbiage.
When I felt I had memorized all I could, I turned to question prep.
After the four witnesses testified, each Appraisal Subcommittee member would have ten minutes to ask questions. I didn’t know what—or even whom—they would ask. I thought through the pieces of my written testimony that might be most confusing or controversial. I started to get excited. There was so much to talk about, so many ways we can bring justice to a system that has deliberately appraised White communities as the most valuable at the expense of their Asian, Black, Indigenous, and Latinx neighbors.
My brain was overflowing with all the evidence, history, and arguments I wanted to share. I was ready.
The hearing began with Secretary Fudge’s powerful remarks regarding how racial inequality in appraised values has affected her personally, followed by remarks from the Appraisal Subcommittee Executive Director. Then it was time for the witnesses’ oral testimonies. I went first. As I began reciting my planned remarks, I fell into a rhythm, remembering nearly every point I had planned. I finished, took a deep breath, and sat back to listen to the other three witnesses’ testimonies.
Then, the questions began. The Subcommittee representatives made thoughtful inquiries, giving me the opportunity to provide multiple comments—including a critical reframing of the “problem” near the end of the hearing. But there was so much more I wanted to say. I tried to respect the questioners by efficiently answering only the questions they asked, but this meant I left more unsaid than said.
I found myself exiting the hearing into the midday D.C. sunshine once again muttering to myself, this time iterating all the remarks I wish I could have shared.
I wish I would have clarified appraisers do not merely reflect the market—they actively create it. Appraisers are taught that their job is to read the market using the sales comparison approach, so it’s understandable why many appraisers view their process as a neutral evaluation of real estate demand. In fact, this very sentiment is what shaped our initial quantitative models in 2014. We empirically tested whether appraiser evaluations reflected real estate demand and found it did not—neighborhood racial composition has a larger influence on appraisers’ opinions than market demand.
I wish I could have debunked the ubiquitous and mythical assertion that White neighborhoods’ historically unprecedented appreciation is due to their high desirability. Only White residents desire predominantly White neighborhoods. And over time, Whites are becoming a smaller percentage of the U.S. population, so there are fewer people who “desire” White neighborhoods, yet the value of these communities is skyrocketing—suggesting it is not buyer’s desires but methodological approaches that are perpetuating this inequity.
I wish I would have explained how appraising methods have been changed before and can be changed again. After nearly a century of conducting appraisals one way, multiple theories, institutions, and systems have been created to substantiate and perpetrate the sales comparison approach. But that does not mean we are stuck with it. We can build a new system, one built on the values of equity and respect for all humans and this planet we call home.
I wish I could have said these things at the hearing, but I know there will be other opportunities to do so. I reboarded the train and slumped into my seat. I was physically, emotionally, and mentally exhausted–but I was also extremely grateful, for the opportunity to share my research and for all those fighting for housing justice and equity. We are building a movement of people across the country. It is not just about one hearing or even one regulatory committee. We are reimaging equity from the ground up—transforming how we evaluate, finance, and care for our land.
