Tags

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

Biden-Dem Racist Sexist Plan to Exile Poor from Cities to High Density Suburban Housing Mimics France’s Failed Suburban Policy of the 60s, and Undermines the American Dream of a Single Family Home – Deadline Today

The deadline for comment is today at 11.59 pm, Eastern Daylight Time – that is one minute until midnight. The Biden Admin rule is a remake of the Obama era rule: “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”. https://www.regulations.gov/document/HUD-2021-0031-0001 It overturns the 2020 “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice”, which does a good job of outlining the issues, unlike the badly written Biden proposed rule: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2021/07/09/huds-preserving-community-and-neighborhood-choice-2020-which-biden-admin-aims-to-overturn-comment-deadline-july-12-2021/ Regulations no longer allows you to read and edit submissions and the character limit is 5000. So, it is wise to use https://wordcounter.net and then paste your comment. Comments can still be anonymous and are supposed to be part of the record. You can also append a pdf document.

Comment:

This is in support of the 2020 rule “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice”, and, thus, in opposition to this proposed rule (HUD-2021-0031-000)

The 2020 rule explains that Senator Mondale, the chief sponsor of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), said that Title VIII’s fair housing policy means “the elimination of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.” It is “fair” if anyone who can afford it faces no discrimination-based barriers to purchasing it.”

The Biden Admin is foisting upon America the worst parts of the failed urbanism of 1960s France and the UK, where the poor and new immigrants were forced into high rise suburban new town-ghettos, thus leaving the urban core for the rich and yuppies. Except, you don’t even propose the amenities of these older projects. Besides the social consequences, the long-term physical consequences of these high rises are evident from the UK Grenfell Tower fire and the recent collapse of middle class condos in Florida. Most US multi family housing isn’t even that well constructed and is two or three story press board-wood fire traps.

There is a housing shortage because of US immigration policy which imports over a million people legally per year, undermining employment and housing affordability. It lowers wages, creates unemployment, and increases housing costs.

Your rule is a racist rule that incorrectly assumes that minorities can’t-shouldn’t have a single family home and that single family home zoning is “exclusionary”, which you then falsely conflate with discriminatory. Even in the Jim Crow South of the 1950s and 60s, African Americans bought homes in Ponchartrain Park subdivision in New Orleans. Your inherent argument that minorities can’t have or aspire to single family housing is both untrue and racist.

You are using minorities as a cudgel to undermine the American Dream of house ownership. This dream is shared by most Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. Even sharecroppers had single family houses, and often slaves did, too. Some of these are still standing, unlike the Florida highrise. Over 150 years after slavery, housing should be upgraded, rather than downgraded as you propose. In the 1970s, even single young mothers were given the opportunity to buy houses. Many LBGTQs would like to live peacefully in a single family home. Clearly, you seek to undermine single family zoning for your own agenda.

The [HUD] contact, Sasha Samberg-Champion, seems to have made his living suing for LBGT and Spanish speakers (Hispanics), including suing HUD. He will likely return to suing HUD soon. This is a gross conflict of interest. In 2020, when employed by Relman Colfax PLLC, he appeared to be advising an LGBT “lavender law” group about suing HUD under Bostock in a presentation called “Fair Housing protections after Bostock v. Clayton County”. Thus, one can assume that two objectives of this rule are keeping Sasha and other lawyers in business suing HUD, and expanding and perpetuating gentrification – especially gaytrification. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/13/end-of-gaytrification-cities-lgbt-communities-gentrification-gay-villages Jenn Jones, who apparently helped write the 2015 rule, when Castro headed HUD, is also active in LGBTQ rights. Thus, she has an agenda, too, which has nothing to do with the original intent of the Fair Housing Act. She also has banker connections, according to info found online (eg Cadence Bancorporation, Bankers Capital Group LLC, etc.), adding credence to suspicions that this rule is a real estate scam.

The Bostock opinion isn’t clear cut so the combination of the new rule and Bostock will keep lawyers like Sasha busy and pay for nice urban flats and maybe rural compounds, too: “Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.” (Gorsuch-SCOTUS)

The writers of your rule appear uneducated in urbanism and planning, as there’s not even talk of livable walkable mixed usage environments, indicating that the objective is simply turning the suburbs into high density ghettos.

Clearly, you don’t want diversity, but simply to force the poor into suburban high rises, while keeping the urban core for yourselves.

Opposite sex married households earn only 78% of married male same-sex couple households. Female same-sex married households earn 77% of male same-sex married households. So, your policy is also sexist: male yuppy-hipster gays will be able to afford to live in the urban core, whereas poorer lesbians will be cast out of the city and into high density suburbs.

Knopp (1990) observed that gay community development can facilitate “the economic and social dominance of males in the urban environment.”

Multiple Housing Authorities wrote that they should be excluded from this AFFH rule. If anyone should follow your AFFH rule it is low income housing authorities.

Your rule is poorly written, possibly by design.”
Comment ends.

Related Ruling: “BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY SCOTUS Gorsuch Opinion Includes Alito-Thomas dissent”. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1618

Bostock should have sued under the First Amendment freedom of assembly-right of association, rather than undermining the rights of biological women.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/same-sex-married-couples-have-higher-income-than-opposite-sex-married-couples.html
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/payday-poverty-and-women.html
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/women-had-median-weekly-earnings-of-857-or-80-point-4-percent-of-mens-earnings-first-quarter-2020.htm

Detailed Related Blog Posts:

HUD’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” 2020 which Biden Admin Aims to Overturn, Comment Deadline July 12 2021

Ponchartrain Park New Orleans & the American Home Dream Which the Biden Administration Aims to Undermine; Comment Deadline July 12th

Biden Admin Plot to Push Poor from Cities into Isolated High Density Suburban Housing by Classifying Single Family Zoning as “Exclusionary”; Regulations Comment Deadline July 12th

Apart from this rule, Biden is trying to force this agenda via the budget, and some Dems are trying to push it through legislation:

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