For generations, homeownership has been one of the clearest pathways to economic opportunity in America, particularly for Black and Brown communities. A home has never been just four walls and a roof. It has helped parents send children to college, start businesses, and create opportunities that last for generations.
But that pathway is under strain. Families are facing inflation, stagnant wages, limited housing supply and historically high home prices. At a time when buying a home has never been more difficult, we should be expanding access—not creating new barriers.
I would argue that online home listings have created a more equitable system by allowing agents and brokers to serve their clients with the full inventory of available homes. For buyers, that transparency determines where they live, whether their home builds wealth, and the opportunities they can create for future generations. But this equitable listing model is under increasing threat.
Private listing networks (PLNs) and pocket listings allow homes to be marketed privately to a select group of agents, brokers, and potential buyers instead of through a multiple listing service (MLS), the shared database real estate professionals used to find and compare homes. Supporters say these practices give sellers more choice, control, and privacy. But in today’s housing market, you shouldn’t have to know someone to know what’s possible.
The growing acceptance of private listing networks by powerful real estate interests signals a shift in how the market operates, with selective access becoming a central feature rather than an exception.
The risks are not theoretical. These exclusive listings can reduce opportunities for first-time homebuyers: 46% of housing counselors say first-time buyers struggle with pocket listings, according to Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the National Urban League. Previous research found such listings can perpetuate racial exclusion and discriminatory steering. MLS-listed homes sell for 17.5% more than off-MLS homes, according to Bright MLS and Drexel University. Sellers in majority-minority zip codes lose $9,850 a sale compared with $3,700 in white neighborhoods, according to research from Zillow.
Transparency is not a luxury. When buyers can compare homes, prices, and time on market, they can make informed decisions. Sellers reach more potential buyers, and the market works more fairly for everyone.
When homes move into closed or semi-closed channels, that basic fairness can break down. Buyers who are not connected with the “right” agent, broker, or social network may never have the chance to find their dream home. Sellers may lose out on a better deal because fewer buyers know their home is available. Smaller brokerages and agents lose access to critical information that is no longer shared equally.
That should concern anyone who cares about fair housing.
In April, the MLS serving greater Chicagoland worked with the nation’s largest brokerage to expand its private listing network while restricting public visibility of many home listings. A federal court recently issued a temporary restraining order to ensure the Chicago MLS continues to provide fair access.
Chicago should be a warning sign to the rest of the country. If this model spreads, public access to home listings could become a fallback rather than the default. We risk breeding the kind of widespread inequity that harkens back to redlining.
Redlining denied generations of Black families’ equal access to mortgages, investment, and the opportunity to build wealth. During the 1930s, federal programs used maps to gauge and rate neighborhoods for lending risk. Minority neighborhoods were often unjustly marked in red ink as “hazardous,” denying them mortgages and investments. Although outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, its legacy remains visible today in racial wealth gaps, segregation, and unequal opportunity. Now, a modern form of digital redlining threatens to emerge. This is more than an industry dispute. This is a civil rights issue.
States are beginning to recognize the danger. Washington and Connecticut have enacted laws to protect public access to home listings, while lawmakers in Illinois, New York and other states are considering similar protections. Illinois’ HB4964 would require most residential listings to be publicly marketed online within one calendar day unless a seller signs a formal disclosure and opt-out form. Every state should consider that kind of common-sense guardrail.
How much longer will America refuse to listen? To stop this, proponents of consumers and of the American dream must support legislation to safeguard against this practice. As the head of an organization that has fought for civil rights and social justice since 1909, let me be clear: We have seen the roots of this pattern before, and we must act with fervor to avoid repeating a history of injustice.
The post The Next Fight for Fair Housing Is Online appeared first on TIME.