What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Obama making bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods (1 Viewer)

Gary Coal Man

Footballguy
The Hill

Obama making bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods

June 11, 2015

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.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 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. But HUD is 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 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.
 
I live in the inner city, so this doesnt apply to me per se. That being said, wealthy neighborhoods are nicer because certain people cant afford to live there. Im sure people cant wait for some jackass to have his '78 Chevy Malibu up on blocks next door to their half million dollar home. This is yet another joke from this administration.

 
Why not diversify largely minority neighborhoods which are run down with wealthier investors who will invest in properties and surrounding schools, parks and facilities? He needs to get income and diversity back in the inner city.

 
Why not diversify largely minority neighborhoods which are run down with wealthier investors who will invest in properties and surrounding schools, parks and facilities? He needs to get income and diversity back in the inner city.
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
 
The article is written as if wealthy neighborhoods are only made up of white conservatives, but liberal white neighborhoods also exist, especially here up north. Also maybe out west, but I am not certain. I wonder if there is any opposition from them as well?

 
The article is written as if wealthy neighborhoods are only made up of white conservatives, but liberal white neighborhoods also exist, especially here up north. Also maybe out west, but I am not certain. I wonder if there is any opposition from them as well?
Of course they will oppose. However, it will likely be in a less direct way. If they didnt object, they wouldnt live in wealthy neighborhoods. They would live amongst the people.

 
Enjoying a bunch of people who have no idea what's actually going on here throwing hissy fits because Obama.

This isn't a story, folks. The rule was proposed two years ago and it's hardly revolutionary. It's merely a tweak on existing qualifications that have been around for many years in order to receive certain grant money- HUD gives them some new data and information and they apply that new data/information to guide their fair housing policy decisions that were already required to make in new ways. Here's the explanation of the proposed rule (note the publication date). This article and the rants from conservative politicians are just a thinly veiled effort to get clicks and attention from people who think Obama's gonna come bus those no-good poor people into house down the street and ruin everything.

Perhaps the best part is that it's not a new expenditure. Grant money that would otherwise be transferred would simply be withheld due to failure to comply with these new conditions. Since when did conservatives get so concerned about making sure everyone gets government grant money? Bunch of welfare addicts if you ask me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why not diversify largely minority neighborhoods which are run down with wealthier investors who will invest in properties and surrounding schools, parks and facilities? He needs to get income and diversity back in the inner city.
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
Ah headlines, headlines. Thanks.

 
The article is written as if wealthy neighborhoods are only made up of white conservatives, but liberal white neighborhoods also exist, especially here up north. Also maybe out west, but I am not certain. I wonder if there is any opposition from them as well?
Of course they will oppose. However, it will likely be in a less direct way. If they didnt object, they wouldnt live in wealthy neighborhoods. They would live amongst the people.
You are correct. When push comes to shove, the desire for higher property value and safer neighborhoods typically trump people's espoused political beliefs.

A recent example of this in the Liberal Northeast occurred in Westchester County, NY.

The two leading candidates for New York governor are clashing over a federal housing dispute. Governor Andrew Cuomo thinks Westchester, N.Y., is a racially discriminatory county. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, but if he really thinks that, you might ask, why does he continue to live there? Cuomo’s opponent in this year’s gubernatorial race, Westchester County executive Rob Astorino, has received endless criticism from the left for refusing to comply with a federal housing settlement, culminating in a series of attacks ads from the Cuomo campaign effectively calling the county executive racist, saying that he is the “only county executive in the nation who refuses to comply . . . with federal anti-discrimination laws.”

Astorino has been battling with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) since he took office in 2010. Astorino’s predecessor, Andrew Spano, signed an agreement with HUD that required the county to spend tens of millions of dollars building affordable housing in 31 of the wealthier Westchester communities. Astorino “vociferously opposed” the deal Spano reached, as he told National Review Online, but having no choice, adhered to the agreement once he took office. The county is ahead of schedule in the building of the 750 affordable housing units, but HUD has demanded that the county go beyond the original agreement by spending more and allowing the federal government to have the power to change local zoning laws. Astorino has adamantly refused. In a press release at one point, he explained, “I opposed the 2009 settlement because I was afraid it would open the door for the federal government to overpower the decision making authority of local communities. As it turns out, my fears have been realized.”

In retaliation, HUD has withheld $20 million in grants from Westchester since 2011. Why does the federal government care about local zoning laws? Racism, naturally. The original 2009 settlement was the result of a 2006 lawsuit against Westchester County from the Anti-Discrimination Center (ADC) alleging that the county has discriminatory housing policies. (As of the 2010 Census, Westchester is the most diverse county in New York outside of New York City, and its share of Hispanic and black residents has risen steadily over the years.) Astorino’s Democratic predecessor called the suit “garbage.”

Although the ADC has since withdrawn from the lawsuit and been denied twice by the courts from reentering it, via the settlement reached they’re still pushing for the federal government to take control of Westchester’s zoning laws. To fight the discrimination claim, the county has submitted eight different versions of an Analysis on Impediments (AI), which examined all zoning districts in Westchester to determine if there is evidence of “exclusionary zoning.”

All eight of these reports found no evidence of discrimination in zoning laws. All eight of them have been rejected by HUD. At an event on October 1, Governor Cuomo, who lives in Westchester town of Newcastle, said that he “has no cause to disagree with HUD’s findings that zoning laws in Newcastle and Westchester County are discriminatory.” One of Cuomo’s big campaign boosters, Hillary Clinton, also happens to live in Westchester.“Andrew Cuomo says Hillary Clinton’s town is racially discriminatory,” Astorino said the day after the event, “It’s not. It’s just expensive. . . . Given the chance to stand up for our local communities, Andrew Cuomo put himself all in with HUD and its war on America’s suburbs.”http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390520/andrew-cuomo-thinks-his-own-neighborhood-racist-christine-sisto

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The article is written as if wealthy neighborhoods are only made up of white conservatives, but liberal white neighborhoods also exist, especially here up north. Also maybe out west, but I am not certain. I wonder if there is any opposition from them as well?
A lot. At least here in the Bay Area.

 
The county is ahead of schedule in the building of the 750 affordable housing units, but HUD has demanded that the county go beyond the original agreement by spending more and allowing the federal government to have the power to change local zoning laws.
Uh no.

 
The county is ahead of schedule in the building of the 750 affordable housing units, but HUD has demanded that the county go beyond the original agreement by spending more and allowing the federal government to have the power to change local zoning laws.
Uh no.
That's not something the feds really do. Call me crazy, but I suspect you're not getting the full picture from that National Review article entitled "Andrew Cuomo Thinks His Own Neighborhood is Racist"

Also keep in mind that what we're debating here (both in the Westchester battle and the two year old proposed rule that everyone suddenly cares about) is eligibility for federal funding, not standalone obligations or restrictions. Conservatives seem to have no problem placing significant conditions and the receipt and use of welfare by individuals; why does the same logic not apply for municipalities?

 
The county is ahead of schedule in the building of the 750 affordable housing units, but HUD has demanded that the county go beyond the original agreement by spending more and allowing the federal government to have the power to change local zoning laws.
Uh no.
That's not something the feds really do. Call me crazy, but I suspect you're not getting the full picture from that National Review article entitled "Andrew Cuomo Thinks His Own Neighborhood is Racist"

Also keep in mind that what we're debating here (both in the Westchester battle and the two year old proposed rule that everyone suddenly cares about) is eligibility for federal funding, not standalone obligations or restrictions. Conservatives seem to have no problem placing significant conditions and the receipt and use of welfare by individuals; why does the same logic not apply for municipalities?
I think my comment was vague there, but maybe the point from NR is just rhetoric as speculation. - Is that really happening? - In St. Bernard Parish here the local gov created zoning rules that prevented the building of apartment complexes which would rent to the poor. A few things going on there, but the courts shot that down because basically there was racial animus. I'm not sure I disagree with that, actually I agree with it.

On the other hand the feds did not withhold payment from SBP - they needed big help in rebuilding (and still do, they have largely not come back well).

I'm generally ok with the idea that the feds can condition funding on policy changes, but I do think that actually making calls on zoning is a bad idea and also just wrong. If the feds want to go in and say there's racial motive there, fine, sue on that and prove it.

Another thing that occurs to me is that we seem to be reliving some old bad lessons. Yes, white flight. In a lot of cities the cores got blighted because people with means fled. Now maybe that was wrong, maybe there were other factors, like the interstate system, etc., but it happened. Now we are going to recreate this effect in the suburbs? Personally I'm all for diverse neighborhoods, I can see the incentivbe for drawing the wealthier into poor neighborhoods, but I can also see this creating an incentive for the wealthy to just flee neighborhoods. Yes this can happen in the burbs.

But you're right, if cities or counties don't like the policy they should just turn down the money. And maybe locals know best on this stuff. OTOH I know for a fact the richest of the rich who locally are very influential politically are typically the prime owners, builders or managers of such low rent / cost properties.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The county is ahead of schedule in the building of the 750 affordable housing units, but HUD has demanded that the county go beyond the original agreement by spending more and allowing the federal government to have the power to change local zoning laws.
Uh no.
That's not something the feds really do. Call me crazy, but I suspect you're not getting the full picture from that National Review article entitled "Andrew Cuomo Thinks His Own Neighborhood is Racist"
EDIT: This looks like the most thorough article on the battle.

Poughkeepsie Journal

Cuomo knocks Astorino over Westchester HUD fight

ALBANY – Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday criticized Westchester County's refusal to comply with a federal housing settlement, knocking Rob Astorino, the county executive and GOP gubernatorial candidate, for disregarding the federal mandate.

Astorino has battled the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development since he took office in 2010 over a 2009 fair housing settlement, contending the deal takes away land-use decisions from local towns. It's led HUD to withhold more than $20 million in grants to local governments since 2011.

Cuomo, who lives in New Castle, Westchester County, and headed HUD in the 1990s, said the county should comply with the federal desegregation settlement: "I have no reason to disagree with the federal findings."

"I used to bring these cases as HUD secretary," Cuomo told reporters in Albany, his first comments about the case. "There's a science to it, and they are saying that when you look at the numbers and the statistics, that Westchester County is violating the fair housing law. I believe today they took $5 million again for violating the Fair Housing Act, which is very, very serious."

Asked about Astorino's contention that the settlement usurps local control, he responded: "News bulletin: Federal law applies in localities."

Astorino ripped Cuomo's comments, saying he owes the county an apology for "slander."

"How dare Andrew Cuomo disparage Westchester families with a blatantly false and inflammatory charge like that," he said in a statement. "Andrew Cuomo owes the families of Westchester an immediate apology."

Astorino said Westchester has submitted eight studies to HUD that show "the only barrier to housing in many Westchester communities is income. Anyone can live anywhere they can afford in this county, just as in any other county."

Astorino's campaign said the original case was brought in 2006 under former County Executive Andy Spano, a Democrat. The campaign questioned why Cuomo would live in New Castle — "that he thinks discriminates?"

Cuomo's campaign has attacked Astorino for not complying with the settlement, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is supporting Cuomo's re-election, visited Mount Vernon in March to implore Astorino to settle the lawsuit. "You want a promotion? Do the job you got right now," Sharpton said at the time. "Settle the lawsuit."

The first attack ads Democrats ran on Astorino were in April on the HUD issue. Election Day is Nov. 4. "New York has a proud history of fighting discrimination," one of the two TV ads begins. "That's why it's shocking that Rob Astorino has repeatedly violated federal anti-discrimination laws for years. He's the only county executive in the nation that refuses to comply."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.

 
The county is ahead of schedule in the building of the 750 affordable housing units, but HUD has demanded that the county go beyond the original agreement by spending more and allowing the federal government to have the power to change local zoning laws.
Uh no.
That's not something the feds really do. Call me crazy, but I suspect you're not getting the full picture from that National Review article entitled "Andrew Cuomo Thinks His Own Neighborhood is Racist"
Poughkeepsie Journal

Cuomo knocks Astorino over Westchester HUD fight

ALBANY – Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday criticized Westchester County's refusal to comply with a federal housing settlement, knocking Rob Astorino, the county executive and GOP gubernatorial candidate, for disregarding the federal mandate.

Astorino has battled the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development since he took office in 2010 over a 2009 fair housing settlement, contending the deal takes away land-use decisions from local towns. It's led HUD to withhold more than $20 million in grants to local governments since 2011.

Cuomo, who lives in New Castle, Westchester County, and headed HUD in the 1990s, said the county should comply with the federal desegregation settlement: "I have no reason to disagree with the federal findings."

"I used to bring these cases as HUD secretary," Cuomo told reporters in Albany, his first comments about the case. "There's a science to it, and they are saying that when you look at the numbers and the statistics, that Westchester County is violating the fair housing law. I believe today they took $5 million again for violating the Fair Housing Act, which is very, very serious."

Asked about Astorino's contention that the settlement usurps local control, he responded: "News bulletin: Federal law applies in localities."

Astorino ripped Cuomo's comments, saying he owes the county an apology for "slander."

"How dare Andrew Cuomo disparage Westchester families with a blatantly false and inflammatory charge like that," he said in a statement. "Andrew Cuomo owes the families of Westchester an immediate apology."

Astorino said Westchester has submitted eight studies to HUD that show "the only barrier to housing in many Westchester communities is income. Anyone can live anywhere they can afford in this county, just as in any other county."

Astorino's campaign said the original case was brought in 2006 under former County Executive Andy Spano, a Democrat. The campaign questioned why Cuomo would live in New Castle — "that he thinks discriminates?"

Cuomo's campaign has attacked Astorino for not complying with the settlement, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is supporting Cuomo's re-election, visited Mount Vernon in March to implore Astorino to settle the lawsuit. "You want a promotion? Do the job you got right now," Sharpton said at the time. "Settle the lawsuit."

The first attack ads Democrats ran on Astorino were in April on the HUD issue. Election Day is Nov. 4. "New York has a proud history of fighting discrimination," one of the two TV ads begins. "That's why it's shocking that Rob Astorino has repeatedly violated federal anti-discrimination laws for years. He's the only county executive in the nation that refuses to comply."
Reads a lot different when someone notes up top and throughout the article that the issue here whether someone is taking federal money without complying with the conditions placed on that money, rather than the federal government simply usurping state and local government autonomy.

If it helps, just imagine that Westchester County is a person receiving food stamps who wants to eat a steak.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.

 
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.
Right, so many people are getting screwed. And that decision should be made locally. Who does the homeowner call about this in DC? The president? Or does the citizen not get to discuss policies with decision makers anymore?

 
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?
I'm on board with everything you're saying. My comment wasn't supposed to be a knock on either conservatives or liberals, or that low-income housing doesn't obliterate property values. It can absolutely destroy you financially, as most everyone who bought their house at the height of the market, and then needed to move after the crash, can attest to.

What I meant was that liberals will get their knickers in a twist if section 8 housing appears in their neighborhood, and conservatives get their panties in a wad that section 8 housing exists in their country. Another example is solar and wind power. Liberals are all for renewable energy replacing oil and coal, just as long as you don't build any of the stuff where they can see it. They say compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe, but I'd put NIMBY up against it any day.

 
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.
Right, so many people are getting screwed. And that decision should be made locally. Who does the homeowner call about this in DC? The president? Or does the citizen not get to discuss policies with decision makers anymore?
It still is a local decision. Your local municipality doesn't have to take the grant money, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.
Right, so many people are getting screwed. And that decision should be made locally. Who does the homeowner call about this in DC? The president? Or does the citizen not get to discuss policies with decision makers anymore?
It still is a local decision. Your local municipality doesn't have to take the grant money, right?
Right, the local guy calls his councilman, and then the wealthy guy who runs the apartment management company (likely a Republican btw) calls and says they better damned well take that money.

And a county/parish, where the citizens have been paying taxes just like everyone else, gets zero money or they have to do what maybe their citizens think is a bad idea for them.

I don't know what to say, if you think a bureaucrat in DC knows what's best for that county/parish than that guy who just saw his property value go down, fine. But it's definitely part of the story of what will actually happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.
Right, so many people are getting screwed. And that decision should be made locally. Who does the homeowner call about this in DC? The president? Or does the citizen not get to discuss policies with decision makers anymore?
It still is a local decision. Your local municipality doesn't have to take the grant money, right?
And even if they do, they're not being directed to make specific decisions on land use as a condition of receipt of that money. They simply have to conduct certain reviews and consider certain factors. I believe the extensive reach of the feds in the Westchester case was the result of a settlement for repeated violations of the more generic and less intrusive conditions of the fair housing grants. If locals don't want the feds making decisions at that level they can vote for and support local government officials who comply with the less intrusive laws.

 
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.
Right, so many people are getting screwed. And that decision should be made locally. Who does the homeowner call about this in DC? The president? Or does the citizen not get to discuss policies with decision makers anymore?
If you view economic and racial segregation as a problem, then local decision-making has caused, or at least not helped prevent, the problem. Presumably that's why the feds are getting involved.

 
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.
Right, so many people are getting screwed. And that decision should be made locally. Who does the homeowner call about this in DC? The president? Or does the citizen not get to discuss policies with decision makers anymore?
If you view economic and racial segregation as a problem, then local decision-making has caused, or at least not helped prevent, the problem. Presumably that's why the feds are getting involved.
Are you sure about that? Didn't white flight happen when the feds started building housing projects and section 8 in formerly mostly white neighborhoods? So they were mostly white, then they became mostly black. Then the burbs got built, those became mostly white. Now what?

 
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.
Right, so many people are getting screwed. And that decision should be made locally. Who does the homeowner call about this in DC? The president? Or does the citizen not get to discuss policies with decision makers anymore?
It still is a local decision. Your local municipality doesn't have to take the grant money, right?
Right, the local guy calls his councilman, and then the wealthy guy who runs the apartment management company (likely a Republican btw) calls and says they better damned well take that money.

And a county/parish, where the citizens have been paying taxes just like everyone else, gets zero money or they have to do what maybe their citizens think is a bad idea for them.

I don't know what to say, if you think a bureaucrat in DC knows what's best for that county/parish than that guy who just saw his property value go down, fine. But it's definitely part of the story of what will actually happen.
Seems like your problem is with the local officials who value the wealthy republican apartment owner's opinion over the other citizens.

 
It's funny, I always looked at conservatives and liberals to be nearly the same, aside from how they define NIMBY. Liberals consider their backyard to be their backyard, and conservatives consider their country to be their backyard.
Backyards are important.

Hypothetically say you're a guy who's married with a child and your wife is pregnant with another. You just bought a house in a suburb for $300,000, You're struggling but maybe say making 80K, it's working.

Then the newspaper reports your county has just approved Section 8 housing in your neighborhood. You talk to your mortgage guy right about that time about refinancing and he points out that the property values are about to head somewhat south in your neighborhood because of the new housing (ie the likely future resale value on your house just went down).

Do you think you might call your councilman about this or do you think you're feeling pretty ok with all this? Are you concerned about the safety in your neighborhood with your kids? Does it matter if your income is 160K and your house is worth 600K? What if you and your wife make 320K combined and the house is worth 1.2 mill?
Right, I think it's easy to understand why NIMBYism exists. But the government is supposed to be making policies that benefit the greater good. Sometimes that means certain people get screwed.
Right, so many people are getting screwed. And that decision should be made locally. Who does the homeowner call about this in DC? The president? Or does the citizen not get to discuss policies with decision makers anymore?
It still is a local decision. Your local municipality doesn't have to take the grant money, right?
Right, the local guy calls his councilman, and then the wealthy guy who runs the apartment management company (likely a Republican btw) calls and says they better damned well take that money.

And a county/parish, where the citizens have been paying taxes just like everyone else, gets zero money or they have to do what maybe their citizens think is a bad idea for them.

I don't know what to say, if you think a bureaucrat in DC knows what's best for that county/parish than that guy who just saw his property value go down, fine. But it's definitely part of the story of what will actually happen.
Seems like your problem is with the local officials who value the wealthy republican apartment owner's opinion over the other citizens.
It might be. I agree there are problems all around. I will add we have a serious rental / affordable housing shortage here. What's also funny to me is that some conservatives would prefer a more Paris-like concept where the poor are housed in the suburbs to begin with. So can't build it in the city and can't build it outside the city. I guess I'm being overly idealistic on this, maybe you and FatGuy are right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you sure about that? Didn't white flight happen when the feds started building housing projects and section 8 in formerly mostly white neighborhoods? So they were mostly white, then they became mostly black. Then the burbs got built, those became mostly white. Now what?
Now what? Repeat process. The Feds will attempt to diversify those new white suburbs (See OP), and many white people will move to another predominantly white neighborhood.

From, Behind tension over Texas pool party, a seismic shift in US suburbs (June 9, 2015)

The scene points to the evolving reality of suburban America, some say. In a country as diverse and dynamic as America, attempts to keep problems and people out are unsustainable in the long term. McKinney is now what Ferguson, Mo., was 30 years ago, says Paul Scully, executive director for Building One America, a group that advocates for policies that support diverse suburban communities.

In 1980, Ferguson was 85 percent white, now it is 67 percent black. Last year, the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by a white police officer in Ferguson launched the current turmoil over police violence.

“This kind of very rapid change – with people running away from each other from one city to another, from one school district to another – is part of our American problem,” says Mr. Scully.

Data suggest that suburbs nationwide are growing more diverse. Some 44 percent of America’s suburbanites live in racially diverse communities – defined as being 20 to 60 percent nonwhite – according to a 2012 study by the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity at the University of Minnesota Law School.

"Diverse suburbs represent some of the nation's greatest hopes and its gravest challenges," wrote co-author Myron Orfield.

He argues that integrated communities have become crucial laboratories for the advance of racial and economic prosperity in America.

“Integrated communities have the greatest success eliminating racial disparities in education and economic opportunity,” he writes. “While non-whites in integrated communities have seen improvements in education and employment, non-white residents of segregated urban communities are further behind than ever. In integrated communities, whites and non-whites have the most positive perceptions of one another.”

But the study also suggested that the trend of suburban resegregation, seen in Ferguson decades ago, is continuing. Once a suburb hit a certain level of diversity (23 percent nonwhite) it was more likely to become predominantly nonwhite than to remain diverse. McKinney is now poised on that threshold.

The bolded supports Saul Alinsky's old adage that: "A racially integrated community is a chronological term timed from the entrance of the first black family to the exit of the last white family."

 
The article is written as if wealthy neighborhoods are only made up of white conservatives, but liberal white neighborhoods also exist, especially here up north. Also maybe out west, but I am not certain. I wonder if there is any opposition from them as well?
A lot. At least here in the Bay Area.
Liberals love diversity until it moves into their neighborhood.
Bingo. Look at Boston in the 70's when they instituted forced bussing.
 
Last edited:
The article is written as if wealthy neighborhoods are only made up of white conservatives, but liberal white neighborhoods also exist, especially here up north. Also maybe out west, but I am not certain. I wonder if there is any opposition from them as well?
A lot. At least here in the Bay Area.
Liberals love diversity until it moves into their neighborhood.
And this is the truth. So far people in this thread are thinking the Republicans are going to spearhead this objection, but there are just as many rich liberals in this country that are not going to go for this,

And the other thing that I find interesting (maybe others don't) is they want to address white flight, but when young. white professionals start moving back into poor, predominately African American neighborhoods, you get the backlash (ala Spike Lee) that the property values are increasing so people can't afford to live there and the "spirit" of the neighborhood is being lost.

 
The article is written as if wealthy neighborhoods are only made up of white conservatives, but liberal white neighborhoods also exist, especially here up north. Also maybe out west, but I am not certain. I wonder if there is any opposition from them as well?
A lot. At least here in the Bay Area.
Liberals love diversity until it moves into their neighborhood.
And this is the truth. So far people in this thread are thinking the Republicans are going to spearhead this objection, but there are just as many rich liberals in this country that are not going to go for this,And the other thing that I find interesting (maybe others don't) is they want to address white flight, but when young. white professionals start moving back into poor, predominately African American neighborhoods, you get the backlash (ala Spike Lee) that the property values are increasing so people can't afford to live there and the "spirit" of the neighborhood is being lost.
That's a great point about Spike. Forgot about that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top