Biden’s Latest Blow to the Suburbs Will Change Your Neighborhood for the Worse

The ultimate goal of “fair housing” This would seem quite simple. As spelled out in the Fair Housing Act of 1968 — and found in realtors’ offices across the country — it precludes “discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings … based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status, and disability.” This means that those who are able to afford to rent or purchase should not be prevented from doing so because they don’t have the financial ability.  

However, for the Department of Housing under the Biden administration and Urban Development, fair housing is more — much more. In proposed regulations that would touch any jurisdiction that accepts any sort of HUD funding, fair housing must mean a plan to “promote equity in their communities, decrease segregation, and increase access to opportunity and community assets for people of color and other underserved communities.”  

Translated, that means that disadvantaged minorities can move to more affluent neighborhoods to achieve upward mobility. “underserved.”     

IRS ACCUSED OF USING ‘RACIAL EQUITY’ FOR AUDITS TARGETING WHITE, ASIAN TAXPAYERS

This document contains more than 200 pages of details about how to do it. The HUD funding recipients will require compliance from more than 1,200 counties and cities. All of these will be required for development “equity plans.”   

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development published proposed guidelines to radicalize the department’s mission.

This equity could be anything, from the construction of low-income housing to the redrawing of school district lines in order to promote racial and socio-economic integration.  

Both those who care about the best paths to upward mobility for the disabled and those who worry over the extent of administrative state control have cause to be skeptical. 

Opposition to “affirmatively furthering fair housing” (AFFH), regulations are certain to be called racist defense of white suburbs. That is certainly how Donald Trump’s 2020 decision to suspend a previous Obama-era version of the rules was characterized. CNN Business said that Trump was only protecting neighbourhoods. “higher-than-average shares of white households” Low-income housing 

It has of late been a liberal mantra that children’s future should not be determined by the Zip Code where they grow up — and the HUD plan is meant to disperse low-income households where they are presumed to benefit from better schools and parks, which presumably city governments are inherently incapable of providing.   

The underlying social science rationale, cited by HUD, is that of Harvard economists Raj Chetty and Lawrence Katz, who examined data in a 1990s HUD program called Moving to Opportunity — in which a small number of low-income households were relocated to higher-income areas.   

According to HUD’s summary “Children who move to low-poverty neighborhoods have increased academic achievement, greater long-term chances of success, and less intergenerational poverty.”  

However, the Harvard study is much more complex. It finds that “every extra year of childhood spent in a low-poverty environment appears to be beneficial,” It also mentions that “for older children (those between ages 13-18), we find that moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood has a statistically insignificant or slightly negative effect.” It is difficult to imagine a government effort that would limit households’ participation based upon the age of their children. 

More broadly, however, HUD fails to acknowledge that sustained upward mobility is based on the constructive life decisions made at the family level — including marriage and employment. These are the foundations of economic gains that allow for better neighborhoods. This is why anti-discrimination legislation must be enforced.  

This document contains more than 200 pages of details about how to do it. The HUD funding recipients will require compliance from more than 1,200 counties and cities. All of these will be required for development “equity plans.”  

The Federal Housing Administration was responsible for racial discrimination in the past by refusing mortgages to racially-changing neighborhoods.  

HUD would enable us to enter a new age of housing policy that is more conscious of color. “equity” — comparable life outcomes for those making distinct life choices. 

It is not surprising that the middle class of suburban African-Americans object to the rule, as they have worked hard and followed the rules. A recent New York Times article reflected their concern. “black flight” From Shaker Heights, Ohio, racially mixed. The article quoted a Black staffer at a library who stated, “There’s a group of African Americans that have achieved and have it together. And then there’s the group that’s still caught in not having achieved. … And I come from the mind-set: Separate yourselves at all costs from the ones who might still be struggling.”   

Suburbs require a wide range of housing types that aren’t single-family. Washington shouldn’t force them into building new low-income housing. 

HUD’s analysis relied upon the work of Harvard economists Raj Chetty, and Lawrence Katz. They looked at data from a 1990s programme that included a small number low-income households moving to higher income areas.    (Fox News)

CLICK HERE FOR THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

There is also what can be referred to as the constitutional question raised in the AFFH regulations. HUD’s long proposal is based upon the 1968 Fair Housing Law’s thinnest of reeds. This law, which follows its main anti-discrimination language goes on to direct other Federal agencies. “to administer their programs … relating to housing and urban development … in a manner affirmatively to further” These are the policies.   

HUD moves its large, regulatory truck into that narrow lane with communities all over the country. HUD defines equity as “access to high quality schools, equitable employment opportunities, reliable transportation services, parks and recreation facilities, community centers, community-based supportive services, law enforcement and emergency services, healthcare services, grocery stores, retail establishments, infrastructure and municipal services, libraries, and banking and financial institutions.”   

The Supreme Court’s decision not to uphold the EPA Clean Power Plan is a clear indication that the court is becoming more aware of regulatory requirements beyond the legislative intent.   

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX NEWS APP

Local jurisdictions that receive HUD funds might have grounds to sue to stop the proposed rule. This would impose new requirements for previously accepted funds continent and other requirements. 2012 saw the court invalidate the Affordable Care Act section that required states to expand Medicaid. Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan were also present. 

Racial discrimination in housing is pernicious. It is dangerous for Washington to use it to socially engineer American neighborhoods. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION FROM HOWARD HUSOCK