‘Right the Wrong’: Homeowners In Washington State Capital Remove Covenant Clauses That Bar Black People from Living In Communities Unless They Are Servants

More than 30 homeowners in the state of Washington’s capital have gone through the process of removing racially restrictive and unlawful language from covenants included in property paperwork after residents noticed a stipulation that bars non-white people from living in the neighborhood unless they are servants.

The original covenant for one woman’s Olympia, Washington, home, unchanged since 1951, clearly spells out who the mid-century neighborhood was intended for.

“No race or nationality other than the Caucasian race shall use or occupy any building on this lot, except that this covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race or nationality, employed by an owner or tenant,” the paperwork says.

Paperwork from an Olympia, Washington, home includes racially restrictive language. Photo: King5 screenshot

Restrictive covenants, which are defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary as “a provision that restricts the action of a party to an agreement, as any covenant (unenforceable by law) seeking to prevent the sale of real estate to a member of a specified minority group,” were used to segregate communities without zoning ordinances and to avoid blame being placed on local municipal leaders. They first became popular in 1917 when the U.S. Supreme Court deemed city segregation ordinances illegal.

“When I got to Washington state, I was surprised at how white it was, and now I understand why,” said Thurston County auditor Mary Hall told King5. “So I think it’s time to right the wrong.” Hall found six neighborhoods across Thurston County, including Beachcrest, Stratford Annex 1&2, Lake Sant Clair, Scotts, and Stratford Park, that had racist language preventing non-whites from living in the developments.

The language is both illegal and unenforceable, but Hall explained how it’s been passed down throughout the decades each time someone sells a house.

“When you close on a house you always get a stack of paper and I’m sure most people don’t go through and read all their covenants but it might be interesting to take a look and see if those unlawful, restrictive covenants are there,” she said.

After some residents, including Michelle Fearing, began to notice the language, Thurston County sent out letters to homeowners making them aware of the language, and provided directions on how to remove it.

“It was shocking,” said Fearing. “I’m reading it going, ‘Whoa. Wow. That’s crazy.’” She went through the process and got the language removed within an hour.

Still independent.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

The wider picture isn't any steadier. Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under, it's rarely the ones built to center a Black perspective from the ground up that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top