, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Comment deadline July 12, 2021: “FR-6249-I-01 Restoring Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and Certifications Posted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on Jun 10, 2021

The Trump Administration Rule from last year outlines problems with the previous rule(s), which the Biden Admin plans to reinstate. Even it appears rather open-ended – leaving too much to the discretion of a particular administration. “RULE FR-6228-F-01 Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice: HUD has reexamined the 2015 AFFH rule and the definition of AFFH Posted Aug 7, 2020 ID HUD-2020-0053-0001“. https://www.regulations.gov/document/HUD-2020-0053-0001.

One part of the Biden-Dem agenda appears to be deporting the poor to high-rises in the urban periphery (suburbs), as in France’s “New Town” high-rise HLMs, which became dangerous isolated islands of poverty and crime. Thus, Paris kept the older, prestigious, housing and access to the city business districts for the elites.

The elites can always have a rural residential compound, along with their urban condo. And, low-income housing in the suburban periphery means that the maids and the yard workers of any remaining middle classes can walk to work. It also allows the Biden Admin to more easily implant all of the illegal immigrants across the country.

While France was building high rise public housing in New Town suburbs, Chicago built high rise public housing within Chicago proper (see top photo). New York also built high rises near downtown, as did a few other places.

If the unemployed poor are moved from housing projects within New York City, for instance, then that land can be redeveloped for the rich, and for white collar workers-Yuppies-Hipsters (aka gentrification).

In Chicago: “Over time, Cabrini–Green’s location became increasingly desirable to private developers. Speculators began purchasing property immediately adjacent to the projects, with the expectation that the complex would eventually be demolished.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini–Green_Homes#Recent_history_and_future_plans

There are several parts to this attempt to undermine zoning, as explained by Tucker Carlson, below. There are the Executive Level interpretations of the law “Regulations”, which is what the comment deadline is for – restoring the 2015 regulations, at least in part, that were overturned by Trump. Then there is extra money in Biden’s infrastructure plan to undermine single family zoning by “bribing” cities with money. He also discusses a third proposal.

Tucker: Democrats want to eliminate the suburbshttps://youtu.be/W3q-qfLtB0o

Quote from the Tucker Carlson segment: “For Democrats, the goal of this infrastructure plan is permanent control over the Federal government and for multinational corporations like BlackRock, the point is driving down the costs of homes even further and building more apartment high-rises in the suburbs. That has been the goal of the most powerful people in the world for some time.” https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-democrats-want-to-eliminate-the-suburbs
What he apparently means is that the home values will decline and then BlackRock can buy them up and rent them, and then bulldoze them to make high-rise rentals.

The Westchester case apparently falls under Regulations. They appear to have lost, however. The case is discussed in the Trump Admin rule, as well as here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210124065128/https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/hud-warped-war-westchester-county-diverse-article-1.984123

Documents regarding the so-called AFFH: https://www.regulations.gov/search?filter=AFFH

Trump Administration Rule being overturned by Biden Admin, which provides a useful summary of the topic and its history: “RULE FR-6228-F-01 Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice: HUD has reexamined the 2015 AFFH rule and the definition of AFFH.… In the new rule, HUD repeals the 2015 AFFH rule and its related accretions.… HUD to issue AFFH regulations.… surrounding the AFFH requirement.… Revise Sec. 5.151 as follows: Sec. 5.151 AFFH Certifications. Agency Department of Housing and Urban Development Posted Aug 7, 2020 ID HUD-2020-0053-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document/HUD-2020-0053-0001

One need only read about Cabrini Green to deduce the plot. They want the central cities for the rich, as well as for Yuppies-Hipsters. Who was President in 1995? Bill Clinton. Who was head of HUD? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cisneros
While Cabrini–Green was deteriorating during the postwar era, causing industry, investment, and residents to abandon its immediate surroundings, the rest of Chicago’s Near North Side underwent equally dramatic upward changes in socioeconomic status. First, downtown employment shifted dramatically from manufacturing to professional services, spurring increased demand for middle-income housing; the resulting gentrification spread north along the lakefront from the Gold Coast, then pushed west and eventually crossed the river. Then, in the 1980s, the Lower North Side industrial area (just across the river from the Loop, west of Michigan Avenue, and south of Near North Side’s Cabrini–Green) was transformed into the “River North” neighborhood, a focus of arts and entertainment, now home to the city’s technology sector.

By the 1990s, developers had converted thousands of acres of former industrial lands near the north branch of the Chicago River (and directly north, south, and west of the former Cabrini–Green projects) to lucrative office, retail, and housing developments.

Over time, Cabrini–Green’s location became increasingly desirable to private developers.

Speculators began purchasing property immediately adjacent to the projects, with the expectation that the complex would eventually be demolished.

Finally, in May 1995, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) took over management of the CHA and almost immediately began demolishing the first of the vacant “reds” buildings in Cabrini Extension, intending to make Chicago a showpiece of a new, mixed-income approach to public housing. Shortly thereafter, in June 1996, the city of Chicago and the CHA unveiled the Near North Redevelopment Initiative, which called for new development on and around the Cabrini–Green site. Under a ten-year Plan for Transformation, which was officially enacted in 2000, the city plans to demolish almost all of its high-rise public housing, including much of Cabrini–Green (except for a few of the run-down row houses, which tentatively remain).[22]
Demolition of Cabrini Extension was completed in 2002; part of the site was added to Seward Park, and construction of new, mixed-income housing on the remainder of the site began in 2006
.” Read the rest here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini–Green_Homes#Recent_history_and_future_plans

Comment Submitted by Housing Authority of the County of Kern Posted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on Jun 29, 2021 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2021-0031-0007

Beware: While the Left want to destroy single family home zoning, many on the Right want to destroy all zoning. The goal used to be for Americans to live well. Now they want to put the maximum number of people in the smallest space for the highest price.

The real solution to housing shortages is to restrict immigration. The US allows over a million people per year to immigrate legally, so the US population has doubled since the dawn of the US Civil Rights movement – almost entirely through immigration.

The result of policies which undermine zoning will be that, for instance, instead of paying $2,000 per month for a house, you will pay $2,000 per month for a rental room with shared toilet-bath. See more here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2021/06/01/biden-budget-proposal-to-squander-5-billion-to-undermine-single-family-homes-to-make-more-room-for-immigrants-maximize-landlord-profits-coffin-homes-in-our-future/

Means and Edward (2012) found “that cities adopting below-market housing mandates end up with higher prices and fewer homes…. Consistent with Ellickson’s hypothesis, the program may not be about increasing the supply of housing or making it more affordable overall.” See: “Unintended or intended consequences? The effect of below-market housing mandates on housing markets in California” By Tom Means and Edward P. Stringham, Department of Economics, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, 95192 School of Business and Economics, Fayetteville State University, North Carolina, 28305 Keywords: Inclusionary zoning, affordable housing, price controls https://www.sjsu.edu/economics/docs/BMR.Mandates.2012.01.pdf