"AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING" RULE
OBAMA'S LATEST VIEW ON HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
On May 20, 2016 the Senate passed the 2017 appropriations for the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This will allow funding for the "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" rule. This is a rule change to increase the effectiveness of the the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which had to do with discrimination in housing. The Obama administration has argued that it has not been effective because the more affluent (and often white) residents have moved to the suburbs where there is mostly single family housing that may often be financially out of reach of many minority residents. The "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" rule will allow HUD to examine all communities to rule whether they are fulfilling the intentions of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. They will have the power to finance minority housing development in suburban and some rural communities that they perceive to be out of the reach of poor and minority citizens. The theory is that these communities offer better educational opportunities, safer environments, and more employment opportunities. Part of the original rule was that HUD could overturn any zoning rules that would interfere with program - this was struck out by an amendment before passage. We will see if this amendment will hinder HUD from pursuing their objective to integrate all communities in America. They seem to be hell-bent on moving this on before Obama leaves office. These policies will not be stopped by any democratic administration.
The idea is to provide transportation into these areas and to mandate a certain amount of housing in those targeted areas. Funds and loans will be arranged by HUD to builders interested in participating. Of course this will be paid for indirectly by taxes paid by existing residents through their school taxes. The argument is often raised that the cities of America have declined because affluent white residents have deserted the less fortunate in the cities. The question is will this raise the standards of the new residents or lower the results for the existing communities? This relates to the argument fostered in the 1960s that people often behaved badly because the were poor. The idea was that if the poor were subsidized they would perform better. But the opposite argument may be more to the point - that people are poor because they behave badly. While it is politically incorrect to suggest this, it is obvious that poverty is often the result of poor choices and decisions, substance abuse, single-parent families, and out-of-wedlock children. Any program that would address poor choices would do more than all the social engineering combined.
The idea is to provide transportation into these areas and to mandate a certain amount of housing in those targeted areas. Funds and loans will be arranged by HUD to builders interested in participating. Of course this will be paid for indirectly by taxes paid by existing residents through their school taxes. The argument is often raised that the cities of America have declined because affluent white residents have deserted the less fortunate in the cities. The question is will this raise the standards of the new residents or lower the results for the existing communities? This relates to the argument fostered in the 1960s that people often behaved badly because the were poor. The idea was that if the poor were subsidized they would perform better. But the opposite argument may be more to the point - that people are poor because they behave badly. While it is politically incorrect to suggest this, it is obvious that poverty is often the result of poor choices and decisions, substance abuse, single-parent families, and out-of-wedlock children. Any program that would address poor choices would do more than all the social engineering combined.
Poverty is bad for all communities and a burden to people, regardless of race. There are more rural whites tapping into welfare than anyone else. and what about all the corporate welfare, tax breaks, tax financing, etc? Has this model created good, family-sustaining jobs? A jobs program and better educational opportunities in poor areas would go a long way, but this will take another generation or two of effort by all.
ReplyDelete