If America won't voluntarily diversify, well by golly the gov will fix that.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If America won't voluntarily diversify, well by golly the gov will fix that.

    By Tim Devaney - 06/11/15 06:00 AM EDT The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America’s wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”
    A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.

    The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities. “HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”
    It’s a tough sell for some conservatives. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who argued that the administration “shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.”
    “American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government,” said Gosar, who is leading an effort in the House to block the regulations.
    Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, are praising the plan, arguing that it is needed to break through decades-old barriers that keep poor and minority families trapped in hardscrabble neighborhoods.
    “We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.
    HUD says it is obligated to take the action under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited direct and intentional housing discrimination, such as a real estate agent not showing a home in a wealthy neighborhood to a black family or a bank not providing a loan based on someone’s race.
    The agency is also looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”
    “This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”
    “In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.
    Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.
    “Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.
    To qualify for certain funds under the regulations, cities would be required to examine patterns of segregation in neighborhoods and develop plans to address it. Those that don’t could see the funds they use to improve blighted neighborhoods disappear, critics of the rule say.
    The regulations would apply to roughly 1,250 local governments.
    Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the Obama administration “too race conscious.”
    “It’s a sign that this administration seems to take race into account on everything,” Spakovsky said.
    Republicans are trying to block the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. Before passing HUD’s funding bill this week, the GOP-led House approved Gosar’s amendment prohibiting the agency from following through with the rule.
    Though segregationist policies were outlawed long ago, civil rights advocates say housing discrimination persists.
    HUD is looking to break down many barriers, but Gosar suggested the regulation would have negative repercussions.
    “Instead of living with neighbors you like and choose, this breaks up the core fabric of how we start to look at communities,” Gosar said. “That just brings unease to everyone in that area.”
    “People have to feel comfortable where they live,” he added. “If I don’t feel comfortable in my own backyard, where do I feel comfortable?”
    Critics of the rule say it would allow HUD to assert authority over local zoning laws. The agency could dictate what types of homes are built where and who can live in those homes, said Gosar, who believes local communities should make those decisions for themselves rather than relying on the federal government.
    If enacted, the rule could depress property values as cheaper homes crop up in wealthy neighborhoods and raise taxes, Gosar warned.
    It could also tilt the balance of political power as more minorities are funneled into Republican-leaning neighborhoods, he suggested.
    The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on housing discrimination in a related case in the coming weeks. At issue is whether government policies that unintentionally create a disparate impact for minority communities violate federal laws against segregation.
    The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs is facing accusations that it makes low-income housing funds more readily available in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. This promotes segregation, critics argue, by encouraging minorities to continue living in poor communities where government assistance is available.
    Court observers say the case could have a profound impact on HUD’s rule.

    Gentrification has been going on for years in Chicago. It has been my experience that when an economically depressed area is suddenly gentrified, homes are rehabbed, taxes are reassessed, those who can't afford the reassessments move out of the area thereby conceding their homes and businesses to those who can afford them and in turn rehab them. So the very people gentrification is suppose to help hurts them financially and displaces them. All this really means is pushing out the poor who can't pay property taxes in favor of those who can. And the poor complain but to no avail, "One former resident was quoted as saying: "We were told by the CHA that once the Ickes was torn down replacement units would then be built. "That has not happened even though taxpayers' money is being used to help build a new Green Line station on 22nd Street and a new stadium for DePaul."[3] The gangs and drug dealers are also pushed out since they don't have the residential structures to sell from or the bodies to man all the positions so they can't blend in as easily. One only has to ask where have all the people gone from Chicago's Robert Taylor Homes, Cabrini Green Homes, Abla Homes, Rockwell Gardens Homes, Ida B. Wells, Harold Ickes Homes, Stateway Gardens Homes, etc. - all of these and some unnamed were high rises. What took the place of these high rise ghettoes were single family homes, businesses and townhouses; sprinkle with low/mixed income qualified residents. And of course with gentrification comes the development of vacant property lots that unknown owners have been sitting on for years, who now can flip them.

    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

  • #2
    They should start construction of these homes in the Hollywood hills area first.

    Comment: (For off-topic replies)

    • #3
      They've already destroyed my business and any incentive I might have to work, they might as well destroy my property value too.
      Save $1000 a year in labor by doing your own maintenance!

      Website | YouTube | 2001-2017 Videos | 2018+ Videos

      Comment: (For off-topic replies)

      • #4
        The problem is that you can take the Bro out of the hood but you can not take the hood out of the Bro. Nice to have our government force our real estate to take a dive just so we can have the rif raf move in next door. I have seen this before and it is disgusting. We work hard for the things we have and those that are content to sit around and do nothing feel deserving to get their handouts. Will Obama and the other POS politicians who push for this nonsense have the low income peeps living next door to them? I think not.
        Dave - High up in Arizona - Black Metallic 2019 DCT

        Comment: (For off-topic replies)

        Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

        Related Topics