Obama set to force affordable housing into affluent communities

[mjvcaj]

At first, I thought this was a joke created by The Onion or some anti-Obama propagandist. But, it seems to be true.

President Obama wants to “diversify” wealthy neighborhoods in America, and his administration plans to to force affluent communities to accept affordable housing, such as Section 8.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is set to release new regulations that would set aside taxpayer money to build cheap housing for poor people in richer areas. Under the rules, the federal government would be able to overrule zoning laws of more than 1,200 local governments and force communities to comply.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/obama-set-force-affordable-housing-affluent-commun/

Another aggressive power grab by the Administration and Federal Gov't that is more hell bent on promoting the poor than protecting the middle class. Similar to Section 8, which I experienced first hand, this program would likely be a colossal failure, if it were ever to get past. As soon as poor people move into the neighborhood, the affluent will leave and cluster other places, destroying once proud schools and areas as taxpayer money flees.

Luckily, a bill passed to eliminate these powers.

 

[Rockfish1]

At first, I thought this was a joke created by The Onion or some anti-Obama propagandist. But, it seems to be true.

President Obama wants to “diversify” wealthy neighborhoods in America, and his administration plans to to force affluent communities to accept affordable housing, such as Section 8.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is set to release new regulations that would set aside taxpayer money to build cheap housing for poor people in richer areas. Under the rules, the federal government would be able to overrule zoning laws of more than 1,200 local governments and force communities to comply.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/obama-set-force-affordable-housing-affluent-commun/

Another aggressive power grab by the Administration and Federal Gov't that is more hell bent on promoting the poor than protecting the middle class. Similar to Section 8, which I experienced first hand, this program would likely be a colossal failure, if it were ever to get past. As soon as poor people move into the neighborhood, the affluent will leave and cluster other places, destroying once proud schools and areas as taxpayer money flees.

Luckily, a bill passed to eliminate these powers.

I know nothing about the proposed regulations, but your reaction to them is priceless. Also, why do you read the Washington Times? Good grief.

 

[davegolf]

I know nothing about the proposed regulations, but your reaction to them is priceless. Also, why do you read the Washington Times? Good grief.

Is USA Today on your approved reading list?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

At first, I thought this was a joke created by The Onion or some anti-Obama propagandist. But, it seems to be true.

President Obama wants to “diversify” wealthy neighborhoods in America, and his administration plans to to force affluent communities to accept affordable housing, such as Section 8.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is set to release new regulations that would set aside taxpayer money to build cheap housing for poor people in richer areas. Under the rules, the federal government would be able to overrule zoning laws of more than 1,200 local governments and force communities to comply.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/obama-set-force-affordable-housing-affluent-commun/

Another aggressive power grab by the Administration and Federal Gov't that is more hell bent on promoting the poor than protecting the middle class. Similar to Section 8, which I experienced first hand, this program would likely be a colossal failure, if it were ever to get past. As soon as poor people move into the neighborhood, the affluent will leave and cluster other places, destroying once proud schools and areas as taxpayer money flees.

Luckily, a bill passed to eliminate these powers.

I don't see a huge issue

I now live in a huge redevelopment area which intentionally includes subsidized housing and homes worth well north of a million bucks and almost everything in between. These areas are clustered, but the clusters are well dispersed. Section 8 housing is okay so long as it is well managed. And we have sound management.

But I do see a problem with the feds throwing their weight around with top down regulations. Much better would be to work with municipal government to do this.

 

[Rockfish1]

Is USA Today on your approved reading list?

I've got no beef with the McPaper. Why do you ask?

 

[iubud]

At first, I thought this was a joke created by The Onion or some anti-Obama propagandist. But, it seems to be true.

President Obama wants to “diversify” wealthy neighborhoods in America, and his administration plans to to force affluent communities to accept affordable housing, such as Section 8.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is set to release new regulations that would set aside taxpayer money to build cheap housing for poor people in richer areas. Under the rules, the federal government would be able to overrule zoning laws of more than 1,200 local governments and force communities to comply.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/obama-set-force-affordable-housing-affluent-commun/

Another aggressive power grab by the Administration and Federal Gov't that is more hell bent on promoting the poor than protecting the middle class. Similar to Section 8, which I experienced first hand, this program would likely be a colossal failure, if it were ever to get past. As soon as poor people move into the neighborhood, the affluent will leave and cluster other places, destroying once proud schools and areas as taxpayer money flees.

Luckily, a bill passed to eliminate these powers.

When we moved to town, one thing we researched and asked our realtor was which area had the best schools. We ended up buying a house one street from our realtor. We lived within a short walk of our grade school and a Catholic K-8 school with the public grade school and our middle school both being 4 star schools. Today, both schools are unrecognizable according to a teacher we know. When they allowed kids to jump from school to school, they all jumped to our schools. Violence in the schools followed them, and test scores dropped. The issues people left behind followed them to the best schools. Instead of fixing what was wrong in the bad schools, they just spread the pain to others.

People pick an area to live in for a reason. Ours was to live in a safe, quiet neighborhood, within walking distance of the best grade school and middle school in the city. Here is a story from last night. It is a regular occurrence in some of these apartment complexes. People buy houses so they don't have to live near problem areas.
http://www.14news.com/story/29302972/one-person-dead-after-shooting-at-evansville-apartment-complex

To have Washington politicians force the building of anything instead of letting local development and land values decide locations isn't fair to people that have made an investment in their home.

You know Obama doesn't have to worry about living next to Section 8 housing where there is gunfire on a regular basis. His high and mighty share the wealth ideas are fine for others.

 

[hoot1]

Berenson v. Town of New Castle: 1975 Court Decision on Zoning

This zoning debate about multi-family housing and using zoning as a means to segregate by income has been going on for years.

The Berenson v. Town of New Castle case in 1975 set a precedent which is described as follows,

Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102 (1975) - In the leading New York State case on affordable housing, the Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional a town zoning ordinance that failed to permit multi-family housing in any of its twelve zoning districts. In so holding, the court established a two-pronged test for the validity of a zoning ordinance excluding multi-family housing as a permitted use. The first prong involves a review of the municipality's existing housing to determine whether the types of housing present, "adequately meet the present needs of the town Also, it must be determined whether new construction is necessary to fulfill the future needs of the [town] residents, and if so, what forms the development ought to take." The second prong recognizes that local zoning often has substantial implications beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and requires that consideration be given to the regional needs as well. Where residents of the region "may be searching for multiple-family housing in the area to be near their employment or for a variety of other social and economic reasons . . . there must be a balancing of the local desire to maintain the status quo within the community and the greater public interest that regional needs be met."

The Washington Times article talks about Obama forcing cheaply built housing on communities. Seems to me neither Berenson or subsequent cases including the HUD proposal being discussed in this thread stops communities from establishing building codes which prevent cheap building practices.

 

[mjvcaj]

I know nothing about the proposed regulations, but your reaction to them is priceless. Also, why do you read the Washington Times? Good grief.

Google News, Rock. I have no dedication to any media outlet sans Bloomberg (terminal).

 

[mjvcaj]

You know Obama doesn't have to worry about living next to Section 8 housing where there is gunfire on a regular basis. His high and mighty share the wealth ideas are fine for others.

This is the truly sad part. When was the last time a Congressman or President lived amongst the populist and not in an ultra affluent area?

 

[mjvcaj]

The Washington Times article talks about Obama forcing cheaply built housing on communities. Seems to me neither Berenson or subsequent cases including the HUD proposal being discussed in this thread stops communities from establishing building codes which prevent cheap building practices.

And you don't think funding will be entirely cut off by state and federal governments should a municipality choose to pursue this route?

 

[hoot1]

And you don't think funding will be entirely cut off by state and federal governments should a municipality choose to pursue this route?

No, I don't.

No local, state, or federal agencies will condone cheap housing construction as a solution for anything.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So, the way I read this is this:

1. 40 years ago, we passed the Fair Housing Act.
2. It's never been fully successfully implemented.
3. HUD is proposing a new rule that will help implement the law better.
4. Conservative pundits go batshit because it might get a lot harder for them to keep unwanted folks out of their neighborhood.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So, the way I read this is this:

1. 40 years ago, we passed the Fair Housing Act.
2. It's never been fully successfully implemented.
3. HUD is proposing a new rule that will help implement the law better.
4. Conservative pundits go batshit because it might get a lot harder for them to keep unwanted folks out of their neighborhood.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

Oh my, Goat

The Fair Housing Act has as much to do with Section 8 subsidies as Title VII of the Civil Rights Law has to do with unemployment compensation.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh my, Goat

The Fair Housing Act has as much to do with Section 8 subsidies as Title VII of the Civil Rights Law has to do with unemployment compensation.

Ummm, the proposed rule is an implementation of the FHA.

Edit: It should go without saying, although it probably doesn't, that the WT's description of the rule appears to be quite inaccurate.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Ummm, the proposed rule is an implementation of the FHA.

Edit: It should go without saying, although it probably doesn't, that the WT's description of the rule appears to be quite inaccurate.

If that's true the rule will go down in flames

Subsidized housing must be race neutral. Next does Obama want blacks to get more Medicaid than whites? Food stamps? ADC?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If that's true the rule will go down in flames

Subsidized housing must be race neutral. Next does Obama want blacks to get more Medicaid than whites? Food stamps? ADC?

It's not about subsidized housing. The OP's link is inaccurate. All the proposed rule actually does is beef up the information gathering process and provide for review and feedback between HUD and local/state governments.

This whole Section 8 thing is all just fearmongering. The whole thing is all just fearmongering. All HUD is doing is increasing the amount of information states must report, and in return providing more detailed analysis for the states to use when crafting housing policies.

Maybe you can find evidence of something broader. Everything's right here.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There is no way to do this w/o subsidies

"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."
​

Moreover, "affordable housing" does not mean minority housing.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There is no way to do this w/o subsidies

"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."
​

Moreover, "affordable housing" does not mean minority housing.

Grant money is already an incentive. It always has been. I'd argue the ability to use them as incentives is the primary reason the federal government gives out grants in the first place.

Of course affordable housing doesn't mean minority housing. You're the one claiming this rule is somehow akin to giving black folks extra Medicaid, not me.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Grant money is already an incentive. It always has been. I'd argue the ability to use them as incentives is the primary reason the federal government gives out grants in the first place.

Of course affordable housing doesn't mean minority housing. You're the one claiming this rule is somehow akin to giving black folks extra Medicaid, not me.

If your 4 points post is not about race then what is it about?

Grant money is nuthin. Housing authorities get and spend grant money all the time. Urban affordable housing will be subsidized. Regardless, there can't be a racial filter on affordable housing. If Obama thinks he can do that by EO he is wrong.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If your 4 points post is not about race then what is it about?

Grant money is nuthin. Housing authorities get and spend grant money all the time. Urban affordable housing will be subsidized. Regardless, there can't be a racial filter on affordable housing. If Obama thinks he can do that by EO he is wrong.

Obama doesn't think he can do that. The rule isn't about that. The rule is about the fact that nearly five years ago, the GAO discovered that FHA requirements weren't being met, and blamed HUD's weak oversight. The new proposed rule is simply a more robust data collection, analysis and sharing process meant to correct these deficiencies. That's it.

Of course, the hoped for result of this would be less housing discrimination, because that's the whole purpose of the FHA to begin with.

This is an attempt to make a current law that's not working as well as it can work better.

It's not about subsidized housing.

It's not about overruling zoning laws.

It's simply about fixing a broken information-gathering process in an effort to improve the efficacy of plans to combat housing discrimination that are already required for these grants under current law.

My short 4-point post was about the absurd conservative response to this rule. I didn't make it about race (in fact, I left race out of that post on purpose).

But your response demonstrates that I was silly to leave it out. In fact, the OP and all the links I can find about the Republican response demonstrate that I was silly to leave it out. Because there's nothing wrong with the proposed rule. The real problem is that one of the hoped-for consequences of a functioning FHA would be less housing segregation. The real problem is that a large number of people on the right have a vested interest in keeping as many blacks out of their neighborhood as they can.

Essentially, the conservatives respond to an attempt to make a law that's been on the books for almost half a century work better by accusing the administration of overreaching. I wish I could still be surprised by such absurdity.

 

[mjvcaj]

4. Conservative pundits go batshit because it might get a lot harder for them to keep unwanted folks out of their neighborhood.

Yea, only conservatives choose exclusive areas. None of your Democratic idols are sending your kids to middle of the road schools or living in middle class areas.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yea, only conservatives choose exclusive areas. None of your Democratic idols are sending your kids to middle of the road schools or living in middle class areas.

Well, none of my Democratic "idols" are going insane over a proposed rule for improving data collection required by a 40+ year old law.

 

[mjvcaj]

Well, none of my Democratic "idols" are going insane over a proposed rule for improving data collection required by a 40+ year old law.

Data collection itself isn't the issue. The proposed utilization of that data is the problem. It clearly states that the rules in the latest draft of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing initiative are able to review and overrule zoning and zoning policies based on some subjective approach to further "integrate" certain areas. In other words, if a suburb outlaws Section 8 housing, the Federal Gov't can come in and overturn that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Data collection itself isn't the issue. The proposed utilization of that data is the problem. It clearly states that the rules in the latest draft of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing initiative are able to review and overrule zoning and zoning policies based on some subjective approach to further "integrate" certain areas. In other words, if a suburb outlaws Section 8 housing, the Federal Gov't can come in and overturn that.

What is "it?"

What clearly states that?

 

[mjvcaj]

What is "it?"

What clearly states that?

Draft of the legislation, originally created in 2013. It's on HUD website.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Draft of the legislation, originally created in 2013. It's on HUD website.

First of all, it's a proposed rule, not legislation.
Second of all, no, it doesn't clearly state that HUD can overrule zoning.
It's a large rule, but I've examined every reference to zoning in it, and there is nothing about giving HUD the authority to overrule local zoning decisions.
I linked it above, but here it is again.

Please give me a reference to the part of the proposed rule that "clearly states" that HUD will be able to "overrule" zoning decisions.

 

[Rockfish1]

Google News, Rock. I have no dedication to any media outlet sans Bloomberg (terminal).

If Google News is feeding you the Washington Times then you should be much more discriminating with Google News. As this thread illustrates, the WT (owned by the Moonies) is notoriously unreliable -- and as a result we get a pointless thread based on misinformation.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If Google News is feeding you the Washington Times then you should be much more discriminating with Google News. As this thread illustrates, the WT (owned by the Moonies) is notoriously unreliable -- and as a result we get a pointless thread based on misinformation.

The more I've read up on this, the more I've come to the sad conclusion that this isn't about misinformation at all. Oh, they're lying, alright. But it's not to misinform. It's simply to cover their tracks. The truth is they know the Fair Housing Act isn't working the way it was supposed to, and they want to keep it that way, because they want to keep their neighborhoods safe and white.

That article comes complete with this disgusting photoshop, to better scare the masses:

That's ultimately what this is about. The FHA threatened our neighborhoods with more black residents. Luckily, we've been able to hold it back with poor implementation. Now that Obama wants to properly enforce a law passed four and a half decades ago, it's time for war.

As I explained to some of my IRL friends, I don't agree with the Dems on every issue. There are a few big issues which I think the Republicans get right. But even so, I don't ever even consider voting for a Republican anymore. Why? Because of shit like this. This shit isn't just a sign of bad politics. It's a sign of bad human beings.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Obama doesn't think he can do that. The rule isn't about that. The rule is about the fact that nearly five years ago, the GAO discovered that FHA requirements weren't being met, and blamed HUD's weak oversight. The new proposed rule is simply a more robust data collection, analysis and sharing process meant to correct these deficiencies. That's it.

Of course, the hoped for result of this would be less housing discrimination, because that's the whole purpose of the FHA to begin with.

This is an attempt to make a current law that's not working as well as it can work better.

It's not about subsidized housing.

It's not about overruling zoning laws.

It's simply about fixing a broken information-gathering process in an effort to improve the efficacy of plans to combat housing discrimination that are already required for these grants under current law.

My short 4-point post was about the absurd conservative response to this rule. I didn't make it about race (in fact, I left race out of that post on purpose).

But your response demonstrates that I was silly to leave it out. In fact, the OP and all the links I can find about the Republican response demonstrate that I was silly to leave it out. Because there's nothing wrong with the proposed rule. The real problem is that one of the hoped-for consequences of a functioning FHA would be less housing segregation. The real problem is that a large number of people on the right have a vested interest in keeping as many blacks out of their neighborhood as they can.

Essentially, the conservatives respond to an attempt to make a law that's been on the books for almost half a century work better by accusing the administration of overreaching. I wish I could still be surprised by such absurdity.

You've gone off the deep end without a life vest

The administration said the proposals are intended to increase diversity in housing and neighborhoods.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The more I've read up on this, the more I've come to the sad conclusion that this isn't about misinformation at all. Oh, they're lying, alright. But it's not to misinform. It's simply to cover their tracks. The truth is they know the Fair Housing Act isn't working the way it was supposed to, and they want to keep it that way, because they want to keep their neighborhoods safe and white.

That article comes complete with this disgusting photoshop, to better scare the masses:

That's ultimately what this is about. The FHA threatened our neighborhoods with more black residents. Luckily, we've been able to hold it back with poor implementation. Now that Obama wants to properly enforce a law passed four and a half decades ago, it's time for war.

As I explained to some of my IRL friends, I don't agree with the Dems on every issue. There are a few big issues which I think the Republicans get right. But even so, I don't ever even consider voting for a Republican anymore. Why? Because of shit like this. This shit isn't just a sign of bad politics. It's a sign of bad human beings.

Give your ignignation a rest goat

And the AFP is not a GOP publication. I already said subsidized housing in different neighborhoods is no big deal in my first post in this thread. I'm more representative of the GOP than AFP. I live within a few minutes walk of income qualified housing and homes worth $1 million+. Even though the crime maps show more crime at the subsidized location i think neighborhood diversity is a good thing if we are ever to overcome the racial divisions from the likes of of Sharpton, Holder, Michelle Obama and the AFP, and judging from the tone and tenor of your post, you too.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You've gone off the deep end without a life vest

The administration said the proposals are intended to increase diversity in housing and neighborhoods.

Actually, there are numerous goals, but that's fair.

But it's not what you meant when you compared it to "giving more Medicaid to blacks."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Give your ignignation a rest goat

And the AFP is not a GOP publication. I already said subsidized housing in different neighborhoods is no big deal in my first post in this thread. I'm more representative of the GOP than AFP. I live within a few minutes walk of income qualified housing and homes worth $1 million+. Even though the crime maps show more crime at the subsidized location i think neighborhood diversity is a good thing if we are ever to overcome the racial divisions from the likes of of Sharpton, Holder, Michelle Obama and the AFP, and judging from the tone and tenor of your post, you too.

No, I'm fairly certain your sins in this thread have nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with your gullibility in believing the worst possible interpretation of everything Obama.

But, at the same time, you're the one who forced race back into our discussion when I was avoiding it, so whatever.

I'd be happy to give my indignation a rest if you'd just once demonstrate an ability to examine anything done by this administration with even the first ounce of objectivity.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, I'm fairly certain your sins in this thread have nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with your gullibility in believing the worst possible interpretation of everything Obama.

But, at the same time, you're the one who forced race back into our discussion when I was avoiding it, so whatever.

I'd be happy to give my indignation a rest if you'd just once demonstrate an ability to examine anything done by this administration with even the first ounce of objectivity.

What the hell?

How many times, and in how many ways do I need to say this proposal is no big deal? I haven't leveled one scintilla of criticism at POTUS over this. I think you got your CO.HDS at a fever pitch. Have a cuppa joe and take a deep breath.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The more I've read up on this, the more I've come to the sad conclusion that this isn't about misinformation at all. Oh, they're lying, alright. But it's not to misinform. It's simply to cover their tracks. The truth is they know the Fair Housing Act isn't working the way it was supposed to, and they want to keep it that way, because they want to keep their neighborhoods safe and white.

That article comes complete with this disgusting photoshop, to better scare the masses:

That's ultimately what this is about. The FHA threatened our neighborhoods with more black residents. Luckily, we've been able to hold it back with poor implementation. Now that Obama wants to properly enforce a law passed four and a half decades ago, it's time for war.

As I explained to some of my IRL friends, I don't agree with the Dems on every issue. There are a few big issues which I think the Republicans get right. But even so, I don't ever even consider voting for a Republican anymore. Why? Because of shit like this. This shit isn't just a sign of bad politics. It's a sign of bad human beings.

Would you want any of those guys in your neighborhood? FWIW, I wouldn't be really interested in transporting the people that cause problems in Beech Grove up to Hamilton County either (and they don't look like the guys in that photo). Call it elitist or whatever but I made sacrifices to make sure we Iive in an area that has good schools and where I am less likely to face the types of issues that tend to come with lower income areas (no matter who the dominant race is in those lower class communities.) And the African Americans and Hispanics who live in my neighborhood are doing the same. Section 8 doesn't deal with the root causes of the issues in the poorer areas it instead transplants the disfunction to more functional communities in hopes that the poor will suddenly become better off by osmosis.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What the hell?

How many times, and in how many ways do I need to say this proposal is no big deal? I haven't leveled one scintilla of criticism at POTUS over this. I think you got your CO.HDS at a fever pitch. Have a cuppa joe and take a deep breath.

I didn't accuse you of criticizing anyone, did I? I accused you of not being objective. I.e., your original response to me about FHA and Section 8. It seems pretty clear your understanding of the AFFH was based entirely on what you heard from conservative pundits, and not at all on taking any of your own time to examine it yourself. I corrected you on this point, and you went off on something about race, including your inane remark about blacks and Medicaid.

It's certainly not my fault you went there. But of course I'll point out that you've once again joined the absurdity that has become a plague among your wing of the political spectrum.

I don't have CO.HDS. I'm disappointed because we used to have great conversations, and we very seldom do these days. I miss the discussions we used to have.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Would you want any of those guys in your neighborhood? FWIW, I wouldn't be really interested in transporting the people that cause problems in Beech Grove up to Hamilton County either (and they don't look like the guys in that photo). Call it elitist or whatever but I made sacrifices to make sure we Iive in an area that has good schools and where I am less likely to face the types of issues that tend to come with lower income areas (no matter who the dominant race is in those lower class communities.) And the African Americans and Hispanics who live in my neighborhood are doing the same. Section 8 doesn't deal with the root causes of the issues in the poorer areas it instead transplants the disfunction to more functional communities in hopes that the poor will suddenly become better off by osmosis.

Since I've been biding my dumpster day* time by watching old GoT reruns, I'll ask you:

"Are you thick in tha' head?"

The problem with that photo isn't that the happy white family should be glad to live next to black criminals. The problem is that someone created that graphic in the first place as a way to scare their white readers about the dreaded race-mixing that AFFH will bring. It's disgusting.

* Dumpster day = the one day a year when our association brings a dumpster at 7 am on a Saturday morning so residents can throw away all the crap they've collected over the year. I had trash stacked on my porch for 364 days so I couldn't miss it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I didn't accuse you of criticizing anyone, did I? I accused you of not being objective. I.e., your original response to me about FHA and Section 8. It seems pretty clear your understanding of the AFFH was based entirely on what you heard from conservative pundits, and not at all on taking any of your own time to examine it yourself. I corrected you on this point, and you went off on something about race, including your inane remark about blacks and Medicaid.

It's certainly not my fault you went there. But of course I'll point out that you've once again joined the absurdity that has become a plague among your wing of the political spectrum.

I don't have CO.HDS. I'm disappointed because we used to have great conversations, and we very seldom do these days. I miss the discussions we used to have.

What the hell part II

I brought up race because that is what this is about. This issue has always been mostly about race. Castro said so. Obama started talking about this and the mostly white suburbs in the 2012 campaign. I brought up Medicaid because it seems to me that the administration wants to use housing subsidies to increase diversity. That can't fly. I was right in saying that is like using Medicaid to increase diversity. But the larger point is that I don't care if Obama thinks this about race, providing subsidies stay color blind. Race is only always important to you and to the left in general. Quit imputing your racial filter to me.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

What the hell part II

I brought up race because that is what this is about. This issue has always been mostly about race. Castro said so. Obama started talking about this and the mostly white suburbs in the 2012 campaign. I brought up Medicaid because it seems to me that the administration wants to use housing subsidies to increase diversity. That can't fly. I was right in saying that is like using Medicaid to increase diversity. But the larger point is that I don't care if Obama thinks this about race, providing subsidies stay color blind. Race is only always important to you and to the left in general. Quit imputing your racial filter to me.

LMAO!!!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What the hell part II

I brought up race because that is what this is about. This issue has always been mostly about race. Castro said so. Obama started talking about this and the mostly white suburbs in the 2012 campaign. I brought up Medicaid because it seems to me that the administration wants to use housing subsidies to increase diversity. That can't fly. I was right in saying that is like using Medicaid to increase diversity. But the larger point is that I don't care if Obama thinks this about race, providing subsidies stay color blind. Race is only always important to you and to the left in general. Quit imputing your racial filter to me.

One more thing

I know the difference between fair housing rules and section 8. What concerns me is that the administration sounds like it wants to use the latter to achieve diversity. I know enough about this to know that you can't run permanent housing programs on grants alone. You need cash flow which means subsidized rents.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What the hell part II

I brought up race because that is what this is about. This issue has always been mostly about race. Castro said so. Obama started talking about this and the mostly white suburbs in the 2012 campaign. I brought up Medicaid because it seems to me that the administration wants to use housing subsidies to increase diversity. That can't fly. I was right in saying that is like using Medicaid to increase diversity. But the larger point is that I don't care if Obama thinks this about race, providing subsidies stay color blind. Race is only always important to you and to the left in general. Quit imputing your racial filter to me.

Again, you obviously haven't actually read the proposed rule. It's not about housing subsidies. This is all a right wing slander.

And yes, for many of those on the right committing the slander, it's always been about race, unfortunately.

Edit for more:

One more thing

I know the difference between fair housing rules and section 8. What concerns me is that the administration sounds like it wants to use the latter to achieve diversity. I know enough about this to know that you can't run permanent housing programs on grants alone. You need cash flow which means subsidized rents.

This proposed rule doesn't change any of the methods available to local governments to combat housing discrimination. All it does is increase the information collected and command HUD to share more analysis and give more guidance to those governments. The rule makes it clear that it's still up to the local governments to craft the housing plans, and the same tools that have always been available to them are now available to them.

The right-wing consternation is really only fear that this new process might actually work. People are happy that the FHA hasn't ever been fully implemented.