http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz

AFFH obligates any local jurisdiction that receives HUD funding to conduct a detailed analysis of its housing occupancy by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, and class (among other categories). Grantees must identify factors (such as zoning laws, public-housing admissions criteria, and “lack of regional collaboration”) that account for any imbalance in living patterns.

Localities must also list “community assets” (such as quality schools, transportation hubs, parks, and jobs) and explain any disparities in access to such assets by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, class, and more. Localities must then develop a plan to remedy these imbalances, subject to approval by HUD.

AFFH obligates grantees to conduct all of these analyses at both the local and regional levels. In other words, it’s not enough for Fairfax County suburbs to analyze their own populations by race, ethnicity, and class to determine whether there are any imbalances in where groups live, or in access to schools, parks, transportation, and jobs. They are also obligated to compare their own housing situations to the Greater Washington DC region as a whole.

In other words, by obligating all localities receiving HUD funding to compare their demographics to the region as a whole, AFFH effectively nullifies municipal boundaries. Even with no allegation or evidence of intentional discrimination, the mere existence of a demographic imbalance in the region as a whole must be remedied by a given suburb. Suburbs will literally be forced to import population from elsewhere, at their own expense and in violation of their own laws.

Read carefully, the section of the rule on “Regional Collaboration and Regional Analysis” (especially pages 188–203), reveals one of AFFH’s key secrets: It doesn’t really matter whether a local government decides to formally join a regional consortium or not. HUD can effectively draft any suburb into its surrounding region, just by forcing it to compare its demographics with the metropolitan area as a whole.

In effect, suburbs will have been annexed by a city-dominated region, their laws suspended and their tax money transferred to erstwhile non-residents. And to make sure the new high-density housing developments are close to “community assets” such as schools, transportation, parks, and jobs, bedroom suburbs will be forced to develop mini-downtowns. In effect, they will become more like the cities their residents chose to leave in the first place.

Read it yourself: http://www.huduser.org/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/AFFH_Final_Rule.pdf

How in the fuck did this bullshit get past a Republican Congress?

From what I understand, this did not go through Congress. This is an administrative issue with HUD and the White House.
Redistribution of wealth.

Angry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How in the fuck did this bullshit get past a
> Republican Congress?

It didn't need to. Obama made a ruling himself, and so it became law.

Thats pretty screwed up. I wonder how this will impact the upcoming elections?

We told you Obama was a socialist. We told you he was tyrant. Did you listen? No, you voted him in anyway, twice.

I hope you enjoy the new high-rise apartment complexes popping up next to your neighborhood. I hop you enjoy your failing schools. I hope you enjoy your soaring crime rate.

You've earned it.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And to make sure the new high-density housing
> developments are close to “community assets”
> such as schools, transportation, parks, and
> jobs, bedroom suburbs will be forced to develop
> mini-downtowns. In effect, they will become more
> like the cities their residents chose to leave
> in the first place.

Meh.

The impact of the AFFH on Fairfax County will be minimal.

We already have high-density housing developments that are close to “community assets” such as schools, transportation, parks, and jobs. and major "downtowns" in Tysons & Reston.

What, you think the AFFH mandates constructionj of Sec. 8 housing in Great Falls & Clifton? lol.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meh.
>
> The impact of the AFFH on Fairfax County will be
> minimal.

Nope. Fairfax will be compared with other places in statistical DC area like Prince William and Prince Georges to find "disparity" between the areas. With Fairfax being as affluent as it is, you can bet it's going to be a big target. AFFH will want to move Section 8 tenants from places like PGC and relocate them here in Fairfax. Fairfax is, in terms of zoning laws, not Fairfax but a part of DC.

> We already have high-density housing developments
> that are close to “community assets” such as
> schools, transportation, parks, and jobs. and
> major "downtowns" in Tysons & Reston.

In a few places, yes. But the standards of AFFH are much higher. IF there is a Section 8 development near the assets, it is most likely medium density e.g. townhomes, duplexes, condos, and low rise buildings. AFFH's goal is for high density projects, i.e. high rise buildings to become more common near these assets.

> What, you think the AFFH mandates constructionj of
> Sec. 8 housing in Great Falls & Clifton? lol.

Those types of areas are the intended target for AFFH. High density projects in low density areas. So yes, exactly those places.

Isn't it called "Culmore"?

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Fairfax will be compared with other places
> in statistical DC area like Prince William and
> Prince Georges to find "disparity" between the
> areas.

There really won't be much "disparity" to be found.

> AFFH will want to move Section 8 tenants from places
> like PGC and relocate them here in Fairfax.

What if the folks in PG County don't want to move to FFX? Do you think that HUD will force them to move?

> > We already have high-density housing
> developments
> > that are close to “community assets” such
> as
> > schools, transportation, parks, and jobs. and
> > major "downtowns" in Tysons & Reston.
>
> In a few places, yes. But the standards of AFFH
> are much higher. IF there is a Section 8
> development near the assets, it is most likely
> medium density e.g. townhomes, duplexes, condos,
> and low rise buildings. AFFH's goal is for high
> density projects, i.e. high rise buildings to
> become more common near these assets.

I know that the National Review scare-piece says this, but the AFFH final rule does not.

> > What, you think the AFFH mandates construction
> of
> > Sec. 8 housing in Great Falls & Clifton? lol.
>
> Those types of areas are the intended target for
> AFFH. High density projects in low density areas.
> So yes, exactly those places.

According to the National Review scare-piece , but, again, that is not what the AFFH final rule says.

The most important part IMO: how turning the suburbs into the city is Obama's end goal.

Quote

It’s difficult to say what’s more striking about President Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation: its breathtaking radicalism, the refusal of the press to cover it, or its potential political ramifications. The danger AFFH poses to Democrats explains why the press barely mentions it. This lack of curiosity, in turn, explains why the revolutionary nature of the rule has not been properly understood. Ultimately, the regulation amounts to back-door annexation, a way of turning America’s suburbs into tributaries of nearby cities.

This has been Obama’s purpose from the start. In Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, I explain how a young Barack Obama turned against the suburbs and threw in his lot with a group of Alinsky-style community organizers who blamed suburban tax-flight for urban decay. Their bible was Cities Without Suburbs, by former Albuquerque mayor David Rusk. Rusk, who works closely with Obama’s Alinskyite mentors and now advises the Obama administration, initially called on cities to annex their surrounding suburbs. When it became clear that outright annexation was a political non-starter, Rusk and his followers settled on a series of measures designed to achieve de facto annexation over time.

OP Left Out Something Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Kurtz, in the National Review, wrote:

> It’s difficult to say what’s more
> striking about President Obama’s Affirmatively
> Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation: its
> breathtaking radicalism, the refusal of the press
> to cover it, or its potential political
> ramifications. The danger AFFH poses to Democrats
> explains why the press barely mentions it. This
> lack of curiosity, in turn, explains why the
> revolutionary nature of the rule has not been
> properly understood. Ultimately, the regulation
> amounts to back-door annexation, a way of turning
> America’s suburbs into tributaries of nearby
> cities.
>
> This has been Obama’s purpose from the start. In
> Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the
> Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, I explain how a
> young Barack Obama turned against the suburbs and
> threw in his lot with a group of Alinsky-style
> community organizers who blamed suburban
> tax-flight for urban decay. Their bible was Cities
> Without Suburbs, by former Albuquerque mayor David
> Rusk. Rusk, who works closely with Obama’s
> Alinskyite mentors and now advises the Obama
> administration, initially called on cities to
> annex their surrounding suburbs. When it became
> clear that outright annexation was a political
> non-starter, Rusk and his followers settled on a
> series of measures designed to achieve de facto
> annexation over time.

That's one conserva-tard's opinion. Take it for what it's worth (which ain't much).

Conserva-tards!

LoLz!

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There really won't be much "disparity" to be
> found.

PGC is predominately black, with FFX being predominately white: both at around 60%. The per capita income in PGC is about $10,000 less than Fairfax, with about 3% more of the population being in poverty than FFX. And that's just the basic stuff available in Wikipedia. Obama's administration has been conducting a detailed data collection program to identify other disparities, so there's likely to be more.

> What if the folks in PG County don't want to move
> to FFX? Do you think that HUD will force them to
> move?

Not just PG, but the rest of the DC statistical area. And yes, considering FFX's low crime rate and good schools, it would be very desirable for a Section 8 tenant. And, as part of the new regulations, any new housing built must be advertised. So the awareness will be there.

> I know that the National Review scare-piece says
> this, but the AFFH final rule does not.

Of course it doesn't, because that will be the type of thing that is individually prescribed to various districts.

> According to the National Review scare-piece ,
> but, again, that is not what the AFFH final rule
> says.

Unfortunately, event hough it's not stated outright, it is the measure they will most often stick to. Consider the case of Westchester County in NY. There the previous county executive, a Democrat, was ousted because of the backlash against an AFFH dry run.

What sustained Astorino in this Democratic bastion were the lingering effects of a 2009 consent decree, signed by Spano, to provide low-income blacks and Hispanics with 750 units of affordable housing in Westchester. The agreement calls for this housing to be located in the county’s 31 most affluent white communities before the end of 2016.

The 2009 consent agreement is similar to decrees that jurisdictions across the country will be facing as the Supreme Court and HUD rulings are put into action.

Astorino’s strongest margins of victory against Spano were in the overwhelmingly white towns where the consent decree called for the construction of affordable housing.

Astorino himself, while slowly moving toward the 750-unit target, has repeatedly demonized the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. In his April 2013 State of the County address, he declared:

"Their demands are outrageous. HUD wants no restrictions — in any neighborhood — on height, size, acreage, density, number of bedrooms and lack of water or sewers."

Astorino warned that “A five-story building — or higher – could be put on your street”; that the agreement to build 750 units “was just a starting point”; and that the actual HUD target is “10,768 housing units” at a cost to the county of $1 billion.

Granted, I'm sure you'd disbelieve what a Republican is saying. But considering his district was caught up in the first salvo, his words carrying a little bit more weight than your disbelief.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> PGC is predominately black, with FFX being
> predominately white: both at around 60%. The per
> capita income in PGC is about $10,000 less than
> Fairfax, with about 3% more of the population
> being in poverty than FFX. And that's just the
> basic stuff available in Wikipedia.

As I observed, that's not much "disparity".

> > What if the folks in PG County don't want to
> move
> > to FFX? Do you think that HUD will force them
> to
> > move?
>
> Not just PG, but the rest of the DC statistical
> area. And yes, considering FFX's low crime rate
> and good schools, it would be very desirable for a
> Section 8 tenant. And, as part of the new
> regulations, any new housing built must be
> advertised. So the awareness will be there.

People live in communities, not 'demographic constructs'.

> > I know that the National Review scare-piece
> says
> > this, but the AFFH final rule does not.
>
> Of course it doesn't

So why are we talking about some scary 'aspect of the rule' that isn't even in the rule?

> > > What, you think the AFFH mandates construction
> of
> > Sec. 8 housing in Great Falls & Clifton? lol.
>
> Those types of areas are the intended target for
> AFFH. High density projects in low density areas.
> So yes, exactly those places.
> >
> > According to the National Review scare-piece ,
> > but, again, that is not what the AFFH final
> rule
> > says.
>
> Unfortunately, event hough it's not stated
> outright, it is the measure they will most often
> stick to.

According to Kurtz. In reality, not so much.

> Consider the case of Westchester County

"Over the six-year period from 2000 to 2006, Westchester received more than $50 million in federal funds, making its AFFH representations all along the way. But Westchester was defrauding American taxpayers. In fact, the County had no interest in removing barriers to fair housing choice, especially those erected and maintained by restrictive zoning on the part of its towns and village (more than 20 of whom still have African-American populations of less than 3.0 percent).

Fairfax County isn't Westchester County. To understand why, read this:
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/draftfairhousingai.pdf

> Granted, I'm sure you'd disbelieve what a
> Republican is saying. But considering his district
> was caught up in the first salvo, his words
> carrying a little bit more weight than your
> disbelief.

Again, Fairfax is not Westchester, and comparng the two is silly & pointless.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Their demands are outrageous. HUD wants no
> restrictions — in any neighborhood — on
> height, size, acreage, density, number of bedrooms
> and lack of water or sewers.

WTF? Why is this shit being forced on us and not put up to a vote? I guess Americans don't know what's good for them. Fucking nanny state.

x4PMh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> WTF? Why is this shit being forced on us and not
> put up to a vote? I guess Americans don't know
> what's good for them. Fucking nanny state.

Do you live in Westchester County, NY? No? Then nothing is 'being forced on' you.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I observed, that's not much "disparity".

It's there nonetheless. Not exactly huge, but it's significant.

> So why are we talking about some scary 'aspect of
> the rule' that isn't even in the rule?

Not explicitly mentioned, but beyond a shadow of a doubt possible. The potential is there.

> Fairfax County isn't Westchester County. To
> understand why, read this:
> http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/draftfairhousinga
> i.pdf

Even in your source it still points to disparities, and that's just within Fairfax. And considering that Fairfax will be in a "region" where one district's disparities are held accountable by another, that's just the icing on the cake.

Nothing 'being forced on' you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then nothing is 'being forced on' you.

Not yet. There are some who are trying to prevent this from being forced down the American people's throats.

Ooo, I forget something.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People live in communities, not 'demographic
> constructs'.

Not after this ruling.

All is going according to plan.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ooo, I forget something.
>
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > People live in communities, not 'demographic
> > constructs'.
>
> Not after this ruling.


Seriously if that doesn't speak to you that this is bad idea, then I don't know what would.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As I observed, that's not much "disparity".
>
> It's there nonetheless. Not exactly huge, but it's
> significant.

Where does the AFFH rule define what level of "disparity" grantees must address?

> > So why are we talking about some scary 'aspect
> of
> > the rule' that isn't even in the rule?
>
> Not explicitly mentioned, but beyond a shadow of a
> doubt possible. The potential is there.

“The potential is there.” You see it, I don’t.

> > Fairfax County isn't Westchester County. To
> > understand why, read this:
> >
> http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/draftfairhousingai.pdf
>
> Even in your source it still points to
> disparities, and that's just within Fairfax. And
> considering that Fairfax will be in a "region"
> where one district's disparities are held
> accountable by another, that's just the icing on
> the cake.

Again, please point out specifically in the AFFH Rule where it says that all housing "disparity", locally and regionally, must be eliminated, because I seem to have missed it.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing 'being forced on' you Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then nothing is 'being forced on' you.
>
> Not yet. There are some who are trying to prevent
> this from being forced down the American people's
> throats.

That worked so well w/Obamacare. Have at it!

Good luck finding lawmakers to vote against a fair housing rule.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ooo, I forget something.
>
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > People live in communities, not 'demographic
> > constructs'.
>
> Not after this ruling.

Yes, after this ruling, too.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, please point out specifically in the AFFH
> Rule where it says that all housing "disparity",
> locally and regionally, must be eliminated,
> because I seem to have missed it.

Is that not it's intended goal? To reduce and eliminate disparity? Something tells me you haven't actually read the ruling.

> That worked so well w/Obamacare. Have at it!
>
> Good luck finding lawmakers to vote against a fair
> housing rule.

I don't think people will be too excited about the new Section 8 developments popping up around their town. Universal healthcare is one thing, but I don't think the NIMBY crowd will be too happy with this. See: Westchester.

By the way, the House has already voted to defund it. Just waiting for the Senate to hear it now.

> Yes, after this ruling, too.

OH yeah, you definitely haven't read the ruling.

Anytime the GOP starts failing to be relevant they return to the scare the white people bullshit. Sad.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Is that not it's intended goal? To reduce and
> eliminate disparity? Something tells me you
> haven't actually read the ruling.

The purpose of the AFFH is to; "...help communities analyze challenges to fair housing choice (via the AFH planning process) and establish their own goals and priorities to address the fair housing barriers in their community."

There is no requirement in the AFFH that communities adhere to any specific numerical requirements.

> > That worked so well w/Obamacare. Have at it!
> >
> > Good luck finding lawmakers to vote against a
> fair
> > housing rule.
>
> I don't think people will be too excited about the
> new Section 8 developments popping up around their
> town.

The building new Section 8 developments is not the goal of the AFFH.

> By the way, the House has already voted to defund
> it. Just waiting for the Senate to hear it now.

But no public hearings...tsk, tsk, tsk. And the President will veto whatever Congress passed, so...Hello, square one.

> > Yes, after this ruling, too.
>
> OH yeah, you definitely haven't read the ruling.

I can tell by the number of specific references to the AFFH that you're provided here that you are far less familiar with the rule than am I.

We need more niggers and spics in Vienna.

Send us your negroes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We need more niggers and spics in Vienna.

Attachments:

Are you gay for Black cock? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Send us your negroes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We need more niggers and spics in Vienna.
>


Why, yes, I am. Most of us in Vienna are.

Thanks for asking.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OH yeah, you definitely haven't read the ruling.

He has, don't waste your time. This is probably the same guy that was trying to spread misinformation over in the Off-Topic thread. They really, really don't want people to know about this ruling and what it's going to do.

None of this talk now matters because it's over. It's only a matter of time before it gets funding. Instead we'll just have to wait until it starts actually happening. Then it's game over for the Democrats. Even in Democrat strongholds like Westchester county.

bmeKU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> None of this talk now matters because it's over.
> It's only a matter of time before it gets funding.

+1

I totally agree.

> Instead we'll just have to wait until it starts
> actually happening. Then it's game over for the
> Democrats. Even in Democrat strongholds like
> Westchester county.

-1

When what "starts actually happening" is nothing sinister, or even controversial, everyone will say; "meh, this rule doesn't harm anyone."

Nothing sinister Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When what "starts actually happening" is nothing
> sinister, or even controversial, everyone will
> say; "meh, this rule doesn't harm anyone."

So what do you think will happen?

XWJdw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing sinister Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When what "starts actually happening" is
> nothing
> > sinister, or even controversial, everyone will
> > say; "meh, this rule doesn't harm anyone."
>
> So what do you think will happen?

I think that jurisdictions will go through the AFH planning process and, based upon its results, establish their own goals and priorities to address the fair housing barriers in their jurisdiction, whatever they may be.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no requirement in the AFFH that
> communities adhere to any specific numerical
> requirements.

Exactly. It's kept ambiguous so HUD can ptetty much do it as they see fit. That's why they have final say in all plans. It's most certainly not up to local governments.

> The building new Section 8 developments is not the
> goal of the AFFH.

No, but reduction of housing disparity will almost certainly entail new Section 8 developments

> I can tell by the number of specific references to
> the AFFH that you're provided here that you are
> far less familiar with the rule than am I.

And I can tell from your references that you haven't read past the introductory bits.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is no requirement in the AFFH that
> > communities adhere to any specific numerical
> > requirements.
>
> Exactly. It's kept ambiguous so HUD can ptetty
> much do it as they see fit.

Numbers aren't specified so that local governments can decide for themselves what is best.

> That's why they have final say in all plans.
> It's most certainly not up to local governments.

Of course it's "up to local governments". Show me in the Rule where it says HUD has final approval of all local plans. Hint: You won't be able to, 'cause it's not in there.

> > The building new Section 8 developments is not
> the
> > goal of the AFFH.
>
> No, but reduction of housing disparity will almost
> certainly entail new Section 8 developments

Why? Reducing housing segregation may involve nothing more than rezoning, say from 1 dwelling/acre to 4, and for a small area at that.

> > I can tell by the number of specific references
> to
> > the AFFH that you're provided here that you are
> > far less familiar with the rule than am I.
>
> And I can tell from your references that you
> haven't read past the introductory bits.

Please, share with us this deep, specific knowledge you've gleaned... lol.

I agree, this is probably more of a panic piece; however, it does bring to light the strange elitist nature (whilst cloaked in 'Socialism') of President Obama's policies.

Weakening the middle class to over benefit the lower classes, thereby bringing us all down a few notches. More income disparity....more centralized control...less autonomy.

If we can swim past this fabricated race war that CNN and MSNBC are trying their damnedest to project....we might actually get to see our civil liberties running down the drain...

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There is no requirement in the AFFH that
> > > communities adhere to any specific numerical
> > > requirements.
> >
> > Exactly. It's kept ambiguous so HUD can ptetty
> > much do it as they see fit.
>
> Numbers aren't specified so that local governments
> can decide for themselves what is best.
>
> > That's why they have final say in all plans.
> > It's most certainly not up to local
> governments.
>
> Of course it's "up to local governments". Show me
> in the Rule where it says HUD has final approval
> of all local plans. Hint: You won't be able to,
> 'cause it's not in there.


That's not how it works. It is to a degree but not the complete picture. HUD also uses the same data to determine where there are "disparate impacts" and can file suit on that basis as they do in many other cases of discrimination. That applies even where there is no intentional discrimination. So for any area where they can identify some non-proportional distribution or impact by race or otherwise protected class, they can file suit in Federal court. Or the locality, developer, or other entity can be threatened with suit to cause compliance. So what's up to the local government isn't entirely up to them and reduces to a decision to either comply with HUD's requirements or go to court. On a practical basis HUD does have final approval in that sense.

No worries Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Weakening the middle class to over benefit the
> lower classes, thereby bringing us all down a few
> notches. More income disparity....more
> centralized control...less autonomy.

Dropping property values, schools preforming worse, crime going up. This will fuck the middle class hard. The economic ramifications... well it won't be pretty. I appreciate the left's attempts to reassure us that everything will be okay, but it's easy to see everything IS NOT going to be okay.

How can we stop this? Please start by doing what the media has failed to do, make it public knowledge. Post it on your Fwcebook pages, etc. get folks to understand that this is way beyond fucked and get them interested in stopping this.

FrankR. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can we stop this? Please start by doing what
> the media has failed to do, make it public
> knowledge. Post it on your Fwcebook pages, etc.
> get folks to understand that this is way beyond
> fucked and get them interested in stopping this.

People won't care until their neighborhood gets rezoned and the first Section 8 apartments go up. Sure everyone will get pissed and vote the liberals out, but nobody really cares until it's too late. They know this and they're banking on those four years where they'll still control the executive branch (Hillary's gonna win, let's face it) to enact this agenda.

Julian Castro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's not how it works. It is to a degree but
> not the complete picture. HUD also uses the same
> data to determine where there are "disparate
> impacts" and can file suit on that basis as they
> do in many other cases of discrimination. That
> applies even where there is no intentional
> discrimination. So for any area where they can
> identify some non-proportional distribution or
> impact by race or otherwise protected class, they
> can file suit in Federal court. Or the locality,
> developer, or other entity can be threatened with
> suit to cause compliance. So what's up to the
> local government isn't entirely up to them and
> reduces to a decision to either comply with HUD's
> requirements or go to court. On a practical basis
> HUD does have final approval in that sense.

The purpose of the AFFH is to help local governments to identify the fair housing barriers that exist in their communities and establish their own goals and priorities to address those barriers. If the local government does not take steps to address identified fair housing barriers, then yes, HUD has recourse through the courts. See Westchester County, NY. Legal action, however, is the last resort rather than the 1st step.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The purpose of the AFFH is to help local
> governments to identify the fair housing barriers
> that exist in their communities and establish
> their own goals and priorities to address those
> barriers. If the local government does not take
> steps to address identified fair housing barriers,
> then yes, HUD has recourse through the courts. See
> Westchester County, NY. Legal action, however, is
> the last resort rather than the 1st step.

But I thought you said all they could do was withhold funding so no big deal? Man, you're trying real hard with that misinformation schtick.

We've had this shit in the area for decades already...it's called Reston.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Julian Castro Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's not how it works. It is to a degree but
> > not the complete picture. HUD also uses the
> same
> > data to determine where there are "disparate
> > impacts" and can file suit on that basis as
> they
> > do in many other cases of discrimination. That
> > applies even where there is no intentional
> > discrimination. So for any area where they can
> > identify some non-proportional distribution or
> > impact by race or otherwise protected class,
> they
> > can file suit in Federal court. Or the
> locality,
> > developer, or other entity can be threatened
> with
> > suit to cause compliance. So what's up to the
> > local government isn't entirely up to them and
> > reduces to a decision to either comply with
> HUD's
> > requirements or go to court. On a practical
> basis
> > HUD does have final approval in that sense.
>
> The purpose of the AFFH is to help local
> governments to identify the fair housing barriers
> that exist in their communities and establish
> their own goals and priorities to address those
> barriers. If the local government does not take
> steps to address identified fair housing barriers,
> then yes, HUD has recourse through the courts. See
> Westchester County, NY. Legal action, however, is
> the last resort rather than the 1st step.


See St. Paul or any number of others.

So, in other words, no, the local government doesn't really have any choice but to comply with whatever HUD decides. That includes what is "disparate" which is highly subjective and decided on a cases by case basis as well as actions required to rectify. They're "helped" to comply with whatever HUD dictates.

You WILL enjoy living among black savages and being raped and killed by them! On top of that, you will be paying the leeches for the privilege!

celebrate_diversity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We've had this shit in the area for decades
> already...it's called Reston.

And look how it's still shit after all these years. No "progress", just stagnation. Dems are going to get a deep dicking right up the butthole from the voters over this. It makes you wonder, what the fuck were they thinking when they got behind this stupid, destructive program? Then you remember Dems like getting reamed in the ass.

NdyVW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then you
> remember Dems like getting reamed in the ass.

I chuckled.

jUHwc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The purpose of the AFFH is to help local
> > governments to identify the fair housing
> barriers
> > that exist in their communities and establish
> > their own goals and priorities to address those
> > barriers. If the local government does not take
> > steps to address identified fair housing
> barriers,
> > then yes, HUD has recourse through the courts.
> See
> > Westchester County, NY. Legal action, however,
> is
> > the last resort rather than the 1st step.
>
> But I thought you said all they could do was
> withhold funding so no big deal? Man, you're
> trying real hard with that misinformation
> schtick.

Read up on Westchester County's situation, learn what's what with regard to litigation under the AFFH, then come back and post something intelligent, m'kay?

NdyVW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> celebrate_diversity Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We've had this shit in the area for decades
> > already...it's called Reston.
>
> And look how it's still shit after all these
> years. No "progress", just stagnation. Dems are
> going to get a deep dicking right up the butthole
> from the voters over this. It makes you wonder,
> what the fuck were they thinking when they got
> behind this stupid, destructive program? Then you
> remember Dems like getting reamed in the ass.


On the contrary, it will be conservatives who take it up the ass on this. We liberal politicians, on the other hand, will get decades of guaranteed votes from our black slaves. They love our handouts, and we love the little savages for their loyal votes. Just don't explain to them that our policies have kept them in poverty cages for 50 years already, or it may backfire on us!

Julian Castro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, in other words, no, the local government
> doesn't really have any choice but to comply with
> whatever HUD decides. That includes what is
> "disparate" which is highly subjective and decided
> on a cases by case basis as well as actions
> required to rectify. They're "helped" to comply
> with whatever HUD dictates.

Nope.

Seriously, read the Rule.

Local governments, if they receive certain grant moneys from HUD, must perform assessments of their affordable housing situation. If a local government determines for itself that no barriers to fair housing exist within its jurisdiction, it must certify as much to HUD. If a local government determines for itself that barriers to fair housing do exist, the AFFH requires that the local government develop a plan to reduce those barriers. Further, HUD will help local governments with barriers to fair housing to comply with AFFH requirement with additional funding.

If the local government a) falsely certifies to HUD that no barriers to fair housing exist in its jurisdiction and takes grants moneys from HUD (as did Westchester County, NY), or b) chooses not to address the barriers to fair housing that it identified for itself and takes grants moneys from HUD, then HUD will, justifiably, sue their asses off.

NdyVW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> celebrate_diversity Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We've had this shit in the area for decades
> > already...it's called Reston.
>
> And look how it's still shit after all these
> years.

Reston is a great place to live.

So fuck you.

Diehard Liberal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NdyVW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > celebrate_diversity Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > We've had this shit in the area for decades
> > > already...it's called Reston.
> >
> > And look how it's still shit after all these
> > years. No "progress", just stagnation. Dems are
> > going to get a deep dicking right up the
> butthole
> > from the voters over this. It makes you wonder,
> > what the fuck were they thinking when they got
> > behind this stupid, destructive program? Then
> you
> > remember Dems like getting reamed in the ass.
>
> On the contrary, it will be conservatives who
> take it up the ass on this.

+1

No question about it! Honestly, does it ever go any other way?

No question about it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No question about it! Honestly, does it ever go
> any other way?

So sure of yourself and your party's ability to survive this. Hehe. Remember the Westchester.

4dJkP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember the Westchester.

"Over the six-year period from 2000 to 2006, Westchester received more than $50 million in federal funds, making its AFFH representations all along the way. But Westchester was defrauding American taxpayers. In fact, the County had no interest in removing barriers to fair housing choice, especially those erected and maintained by restrictive zoning on the part of its towns and village (more than 20 of whom still have African-American populations of less than 3.0 percent)."

Fairfax County isn't Westchester County.

No question about it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax County isn't Westchester County.

Not just Fairfax, but everywhere that's a "true blue" suburban district will find themselves turning "red" with anger after the effects of this ruling are realized. THAT'S how we will be similar.

hYJpu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No question about it! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Not just Fairfax, but everywhere that's a "true
> blue" suburban district will find themselves
> turning "red" with anger after the effects of this
> ruling are realized. THAT'S how we will be
> similar.

It' simple, really: Play by the rules (like Fairfax County) or face the consequences (like Westchester County).

No question about it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4dJkP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Remember the Westchester.
>
> ... especially those erected and
> maintained by restrictive zoning on the part of
> its towns and village (more than 20 of whom still
> have African-American populations of less than 3.0
> percent).

Hello Clifton, Fairfax Station, and Great Falls! Section 8 recipients are coming to your neighborhood! Isn't that great? You'll love, it trust me.

Libby Libtard. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Clifton, Fairfax Station, and Great Falls!
> Section 8 recipients are coming to your
> neighborhood! Isn't that great? You'll love, it
> trust me.


Oh look, mad rich people. Hehe. Yeah that'll totally work in your favor. Better find some way to blame this on Bush.

^ Ahahahahaha! Suck it langley libs! Here comes that diversity you wanted to push on everyone else so bad! Ill be laughing my ass off when the new locals crash some dumbocrats house/fundraising party!

"Black Lives matter" riots coming to a neighborhood near us?

UHNuh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Black Lives matter" riots coming to a
> neighborhood near us?

Seems so. It's only a matter of time before a "young black man" is "cruelly gunned down" while trying to gain access to a "community asset" a.k.a. "dat rich white dude's house".

since democrats gain power (even appointed outside of elections) of what has become "parliamentary" style gov "county supervisors" around late 1990's

democrats have continually been funding housing build by illegals and then occupied by illegals using gov money any way you point the stick

it's a scam - to use gov money to import voters

meanwhile fx co did need low income housing because there was / is a growing problem of denizens being forced to stay in their houses because their children had no place to go, because developers were only making low risk hight profit homes (using who's money) for the wealthy - leaving no room for the low-intermediate level needed to "progress"

i know my parents have a house but in their day cracker-box housing WAS available and that is how they "got out of the house"

1) jobs with upward mobility that paid cash not government printed debt

2) housing or rentals at all tiers of pay - people simply were not trapped together or trapped to stay put soley due government debt inflation

nothing about what democrats has done is safe for denizens - all of it wreckless

The simple truth is that just about all of us living in this area have worked hard for what we have. At least I have. I grew up on the poor side and was raised to believe that if you work hard the sky is the limit. So I've done that and have a nice life here in Fairfax. Now we're seeing our leaders reverse this thinking. Don't work hard and you will be rewarded. The end result is that we the tax payers will be paying for someone to bring down our property values and make the area worse overall. It's a real shame. Work hard and improve your life. If you can't afford it, you can't have it. Simple.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attent
> ion-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-st
> anley-kurtz
>
> AFFH obligates any local jurisdiction that
> receives HUD funding to conduct a detailed
> analysis of its housing occupancy by race,
> ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency,
> and class (among other categories). Grantees must
> identify factors (such as zoning laws,
> public-housing admissions criteria, and “lack of
> regional collaboration”) that account for any
> imbalance in living patterns.
>
> Localities must also list “community assets”
> (such as quality schools, transportation hubs,
> parks, and jobs) and explain any disparities in
> access to such assets by race, ethnicity, national
> origin, English proficiency, class, and more.
> Localities must then develop a plan to remedy
> these imbalances, subject to approval by HUD.
>
> AFFH obligates grantees to conduct all of these
> analyses at both the local and regional levels. In
> other words, it’s not enough for Fairfax County
> suburbs to analyze their own populations by race,
> ethnicity, and class to determine whether there
> are any imbalances in where groups live, or in
> access to schools, parks, transportation, and
> jobs. They are also obligated to compare their own
> housing situations to the Greater Washington DC
> region as a whole.
>

> In other words

In other words that means foreigners will take a hit - since obviously they have been abusing the system, both buildign the places and occupying them using gov money.

It is good news but not good news. #1 it already happened and can happen again. #2 just because they asked a good question "is this place total bull shit" doesn't mean they'll follow up on it. It could be foreigners are running the investigation and they'll report discrimination against immigrants even thought the places are built by occupied immigrants almost exclusivly - leaving no room no chance for denizens to progress, get out, get family - breed in other words - and then we get into politics of who is in gov deciding who gets a family - becauese democrats have put themselves in control of playing god with your money and also playing in playgrounds for the rich using it as well.

In other words that means foreigners will take a hit if the question is answered honestly and if there is proper and somewhat efficient follow-up.

In other words that means forei Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words that means foreigners will take a
> hit if the question is answered honestly and if
> there is proper and somewhat efficient follow-up.

I think I can understand your crazy talk sven, and the answer to that is: NO, they will not answer the question honestly. HUD has said in the Q & A part of the ruling that they don't want to break up immigrant communities. Only white communities are slated for demolition.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers aren't specified so that local governments
> can decide for themselves what is best.

Again, it's kept ambiguous so the end goal can be shaped to HUD's liking.

> Of course it's "up to local governments". Show me
> in the Rule where it says HUD has final approval
> of all local plans. Hint: You won't be able to,
> 'cause it's not in there.

Admittedly I misread a section on localities' submission of AH plans to HUD. However as was noted earlier ITT, the recent SCOTUS ruling will affect the change HUD desires: localities' cooperation or no.

> Why? Reducing housing segregation may involve
> nothing more than rezoning, say from 1
> dwelling/acre to 4, and for a small area at that.

As seen in Westchester (their history over a decade ago aside) it will almost certainly entail affordable housing. Rezoning alone will not bring those in poverty to wealthy areas.

Libby Libtard. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No question about it! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4dJkP Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Remember the Westchester.
> >
> > ... especially those erected and
> > maintained by restrictive zoning on the part of
> > its towns and village (more than 20 of whom
> still
> > have African-American populations of less than
> 3.0
> > percent).
>
> Hello Clifton, Fairfax Station, and Great Falls!
> Section 8 recipients are coming to your
> neighborhood! Isn't that great? You'll love, it
> trust me.

Nope.

Read it: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/consplan/fy2016consolidated_plan.pdf

Sec. 8 housing being built in in Clifton, Fairfax Station, and Great Falls? Not gonna happen. But please, continue your fear mongering. It's the one think at which you right-wingers excel. lol.

dWYKy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UHNuh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Black Lives matter" riots coming to a
> > neighborhood near us?
>
> Seems so. It's only a matter of time before a
> "young black man" is "cruelly gunned down" while
> trying to gain access to a "community asset"
> a.k.a. "dat rich white dude's house".

Looking at it that way, this could have dire consequences unless their put into a very liberal neighborhood, in which case they will have a field day.
I think there also is a hidden agenda to divide and conquer white neighbohoods, because this will "give someone else a chance" or whatever BS excuse BAMA and co. have for "leveling the playing field", social justice, anti-colonialism, anti-white man, etc.

tPncG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libby Libtard. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hello Clifton, Fairfax Station, and Great
> Falls!
> > Section 8 recipients are coming to your
> > neighborhood! Isn't that great? You'll love, it
> > trust me.
>
>
> Oh look, mad rich people. Hehe. Yeah that'll
> totally work in your favor. Better find some way
> to blame this on Bush.

Not gonna happen... lol.

No question about it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not gonna happen... lol.

Why wouldn't it happen? Those areas are the very target of AFFH: to break down barriers to fair housing.

FrankR. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now we're seeing our leaders reverse this thinking.

No, we're not, because they're not. Simple.

No question about it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope.
>
> Read it:
> http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/consplan/fy2016co
> nsolidated_plan.pdf
>
> Sec. 8 housing being built in in Clifton, Fairfax
> Station, and Great Falls? Not gonna happen. But
> please, continue your fear mongering. It's the one
> think at which you right-wingers excel. lol.

Under this law, the HUD ruling trumps local zoning ordinances. Period.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No question about it! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not gonna happen... lol.
>
> Why wouldn't it happen?

Because it's not in the plan, Man:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/consplan/fy2016consolidated_plan.pdf

Simple is as simple does Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankR. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now we're seeing our leaders reverse this
> thinking.
>
> No, we're not, because they're not. Simple.

Not yet, at least.

It's not in the plan, Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it's not in the plan, Man:
>
> http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/consplan/fy2016co
> nsolidated_plan.pdf

That plan will be rendered irrelevant if HUD decides there are barriers. And considering that in the aforementioned areas black populations are low, they WILL be the prime targets in Fairfax County.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Simple is as simple does Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FrankR. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Now we're seeing our leaders reverse this
> > thinking.
> >
> > No, we're not, because they're not. Simple.
>
> Not yet, at least.

They don't have to say the actual words, their actions are their words. It's not setting a good example.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Numbers aren't specified so that local
> governments
> > can decide for themselves what is best.
>
> Again, it's kept ambiguous so the end goal can be
> shaped to HUD's liking.

Again, to facilitate local control, not take it away.

> > Of course it's "up to local governments". Show
> me
> > in the Rule where it says HUD has final
> approval
> > of all local plans. Hint: You won't be able to,
> > 'cause it's not in there.
>
> Admittedly I misread a section on localities'
> submission of AH plans to HUD. However as was
> noted earlier ITT, the recent SCOTUS ruling will
> affect the change HUD desires: localities'
> cooperation or no.

You make it sound as if localities desire not to cooperate with reducing barriers to fair housing. Why would you think that?

> Rezoning alone will not bring
> those in poverty to wealthy areas.

The AFFH is intended to reduce barriers to fair housing, which does not mean bringing those in poverty to wealthy areas. Why would you think that it does?

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, to facilitate local control, not take it
> away.

So that localities can decide for themselves if they want to cooperate in this seeming "social engineering" or get sued by the federal government.

> You make it sound as if localities desire not to
> cooperate with reducing barriers to fair housing.
> Why would you think that?

Fair housing = affordable housing for those in poverty and access to better assets e.g. schools. Do you really think that's not what that means?

> The AFFH is intended to reduce barriers to fair
> housing, which does not mean bringing those in
> poverty to wealthy areas. Why would you think that
> it does?

Because that's exactly their intentions. Bringing those in poverty to places that have better local resources i.e assets. Guess which areas tend to have the best schools?

Bad idea for the economy.

Housing market will suffer.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nope.
>
> Seriously, read the Rule.
>
> Local governments, if they receive
> certain grant moneys from HUD, must perform
> assessments of their affordable housing situation.
> If a local government determines
> for itself that no barriers to fair
> housing exist within its jurisdiction, it must
> certify as much to HUD. If a local
> government determines for itself
> that barriers to fair housing do
> exist, the AFFH requires that the local
> government develop a plan to reduce those
> barriers. Further, HUD will help local governments
> with barriers to fair housing to comply with AFFH
> requirement with additional funding.
>
> If the local government a) falsely
> certifies to HUD that no barriers to fair housing
> exist in its jurisdiction and takes grants moneys
> from HUD (as did Westchester County, NY), or b)
> chooses not to address the barriers to fair
> housing that it identified for
> itself and takes grants moneys from HUD,
> then HUD will, justifiably, sue their asses off.


You need to read and *understand* it yourself. You're confusing what's in the rule specifically with the larger implications beyond just the rule itself.

The more significant event is the recent Supreme Court decision finding that "disparate impact" (as determined, for example, using the tools and methods described in the rule) can be applied even where there is not demonstrated intent to discriminate.

The intent of the rule is to affirmatively press the issue and go beyond what has been done to date. That's why the rule is named "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." It provides a basis for making "disparate impact" determinations, establishes associated HUD goals and thresholds, and creates a process for forcing mitigation relative to.

Prior to the rule, the process was more general requiring most the same things at a higher level but practically working at a more loose level wherein the locality was just required to do an analysis of its own, usually not reviewed/approved by HUD, and certify that it was attempting to meet its obligations. The only time that it became an issue was where there was some disconnect between what they were supposed to be doing (e.g., Westchester) or some specific case of alleged discrimination (e.g., St Paul).

Under the rule and using the tools and methods described, it no longer works that way. They are required to use the HUD tools, methods, and apply HUD's criteria. HUD also can use the same data independently to identify "disparate impact" as it defines it, and to require that something be done to address it. That is, HUD's database will identify areas that are too rich and too white, or not having enough services for people with disabilities, or gays, or whatever other metrics for protected classes (again whether intentional or not). They then can be required to address that circumstance. As above, the end result being that HUD can enforce it's determinations of "disparate impact" through the courts and/or threat of legal action to cause compliance. That's the larger concern.

None of this is any big secret plan btw. They just try to downplay it when speaking to those with concerns over the potential reach. The administration is quite proud and open in stating its "win" here and its greater objectives especially when speaking to advocates.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Again, to facilitate local control, not take it
> > away.
>
> So that localities can decide for themselves if
> they want to cooperate in this seeming "social
> engineering" or get sued by the federal
> government.
>
> > You make it sound as if localities desire not
> to
> > cooperate with reducing barriers to fair
> housing.
> > Why would you think that?
>
> Fair housing = affordable housing for those in
> poverty and access to better assets e.g. schools.
> Do you really think that's not what that means?

Fair housing includes affordable housing, sure, but it's primarily about stopping housing discrimination against disabled people, the elderly, and minorities; about equal access to mortgages; about non-discriminatory housing advertising; and, much, much more. Fair housing is for EVERYONE, not just the poor. Read the FFX plan to learn more: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/consplan/fy2016consolidated_plan.pdf

> > The AFFH is intended to reduce barriers to fair
> > housing, which does not mean bringing those in
> > poverty to wealthy areas. Why would you think
> that
> > it does?
>
> Because that's exactly their intentions.

But it's not. Will you please read the goddamn fucking Fairfax County plan, which discusses specific actions to reduce barriers to fair housing? There is absolutely nothing in it regarding building low-income housing on wealthy areas. It simply isn't going to happen. Stop regurgitating the same tired, incorrect talking points.

Julian Castro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The more significant event is the recent Supreme
> Court decision finding that "disparate impact" (as
> determined, for example, using the tools and
> methods described in the rule) can be applied even
> where there is not demonstrated intent to
> discriminate.

Which makes sense, since, regardless the intent, discrimination causes harm.

> That's why the rule is named "Affirmatively
> Furthering Fair Housing." It provides a basis for
> making "disparate impact" determinations,
> establishes associated HUD goals and thresholds,
> and creates a process for forcing mitigation
> relative to.

The rule establishes broad HUD goals, but allows jurisdictions wide latitude in deciding how to accomplish them.

> They are required to use the HUD tools, methods, and apply
> HUD's criteria. HUD also can use the same data
> independently to identify "disparate impact" as it
> defines it, and to require that something be done
> to address it. That is, HUD's database will
> identify areas that are too rich and too white, or
> not having enough services for people with
> disabilities, or gays, or whatever other metrics
> for protected classes (again whether intentional
> or not).

Where, specifically in the rule does it say that HUD will independently identify "disparate impact" as it defines it, and to require that something be done to address it? I know that’s what Kurtz said inhis NR scare-piece, but I didn’t read that in the rule.

Attachments:

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fair housing includes affordable housing, sure,
> but it's primarily about stopping housing
> discrimination against disabled people, the
> elderly, and minorities; about equal access to
> mortgages; about non-discriminatory housing
> advertising; and, much, much more. Fair housing is
> for EVERYONE, not just the poor. Read the FFX plan
> to learn more:
> http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/rha/consplan/fy2016co
> nsolidated_plan.pdf

Yes, racial and other protected class specifc discrimination including economic. That is conveniently in the "much, much more" part you casually glazed over (ambiguity seems to be a running theme here). Further more the County plan can be deemed irrelevant at HUD's discretion, if they can indentify a disparity they think needs addressing. We have definite disparity throughout different areas in this county; and considering we are also getting compared to the region as a whole, we will more than likely have much to address.

HUD doesn't need to specifically state the have to power to "reject" plans; the SCOTUS decision gives them that power. Again everything must, for all intents and purposes, pass HUD muster.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, racial and other protected class specifc
> discrimination including economic. That is
> conveniently in the "much, much more" part you
> casually glazed over (ambiguity seems to be a
> running theme here).

Gee, sorry that I don’t have all day to specifically list out for you every single aspect of housing that is covered by ‘fair housing’ when you’re capable of reading it for yourself (HUD.gov). Suffice it to say that it is WAY broader than simply “affordable housing for those in poverty”.

> Further more the County plan
> can be deemed irrelevant at HUD's discretion,
> if they can indentify a disparity they think
> needs addressing. We have definite disparity
> throughout different areas in this county; and
> considering we are also getting compared to the
> region as a whole, we will more than likely
> have much to address.

Here’s how the AFH acceptance process will actually work:

Attachments:

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HUD doesn't need to specifically state the have to
> power to "reject" plans; the SCOTUS decision gives
> them that power. Again everything must, for all
> intents and purposes, pass HUD muster.

See my post above.

AFFH = minimal impact on FFX Co. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Julian Castro Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The more significant event is the recent
> Supreme
> > Court decision finding that "disparate impact"
> (as
> > determined, for example, using the tools and
> > methods described in the rule) can be applied
> even
> > where there is not demonstrated intent to
> > discriminate.
>
> Which makes sense, since, regardless the intent,
> discrimination causes harm.

The larger issue here is what constitutes discrimination and what should be pursued under the law. Because some particular statistical circumstance exists, that doesn't necessarily indicate discrimination.


>
> > That's why the rule is named "Affirmatively
> > Furthering Fair Housing." It provides a basis
> for
> > making "disparate impact" determinations,
> > establishes associated HUD goals and
> thresholds,
> > and creates a process for forcing mitigation
> > relative to.
>
> The rule establishes broad HUD goals, but allows
> jurisdictions wide latitude in deciding how to
> accomplish them.


And in doing so they must, they must use HUD's process/criteria and receive HUD's approval.

>
> > They are required to use the HUD tools, methods,
> and apply
> > HUD's criteria. HUD also can use the same data
> > independently to identify "disparate impact" as
> it
> > defines it, and to require that something be
> done
> > to address it. That is, HUD's database will
> > identify areas that are too rich and too white,
> or
> > not having enough services for people with
> > disabilities, or gays, or whatever other
> metrics
> > for protected classes (again whether
> intentional
> > or not).
>
> Where, specifically in the rule does it say that
> HUD will independently identify "disparate impact"
> as it defines it, and to require that something be
> done to address it? I know that’s what Kurtz
> said inhis NR scare-piece, but I didn’t read
> that in the rule.
>

Once again, you're missing the larger picture by focusing only on this particular rule-making.

The ability to determine and pursue "dispartate impacts" is inherent in the larger mission of the agency. In fact, they are required under the law to do so. The only difference here being that they are choosing to take a more "affirmative" role than they necessarily must under the law. Once again, the AFH rule is just one component within the larger scope of what they do. As I said, it just provides a more structured way to do so and expands the specifics and process. They don't need the new rule to do so. They can and obviously have pursued many actions in the past without the newly issued rule. They continue to have that authority whether this particular rule says so or not. It is within in the authority of the agency under the broader law.

I'm not sure what purpose you think that copying the explanation of the rule serves, but it doesn't really help your case. In fact, it says exactly what I said that it does. Any plan that they find to be "substantially incomplete' by being inconsistent with *HUD's* data or other evidence and/or which doesn't in *their* sole judgement sufficiently address mitigation will not be not accepted.

Julian Castro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again, you're missing the larger picture by
> focusing only on this particular rule-making.

That seems to be where most of the disagreement stems from. He's focusing too much on the ruling itself, and not on the language that it uses to give itself a wider berth coupled with the recent SCOTUS decision.

This might be because the big picture itself doesn't look good for the middle and upper class, nor for elected officials and their respective allies that get behind this bill.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... this bill.

Ruling, excuse me.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Julian Castro Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Once again, you're missing the larger picture
> by
> > focusing only on this particular rule-making.
>
> That seems to be where most of the disagreement
> stems from. He's focusing too much on the ruling
> itself, and not on the language that it uses to
> give itself a wider berth coupled with the recent
> SCOTUS decision.
>
> This might be because the big picture itself
> doesn't look good for the middle and upper class,
> nor for elected officials and their respective
> allies that get behind this bill.


Correct.

The Supreme Court decision gives it the ability to pursue "disparate impacts" beyond what in the past were limited more to specific cases of noncompliance and/or intentional discrimination.

The databases and methodology it has developed gives it a way to determine where such impacts exist.

The broad, subjective language gives the ability to apply whatever criteria it deems appropriate in terms of defining "disparate impacts" and what appropriate actions are required to mitigate them.

The rule provides a ready regulatory means to drive compliance.

All in the context of an administration and agency management with an advocacy position.

Exactly. There is actually a good case for this NOT effecting Fairfax because it could be a tool Democrats use to use against Republican districts. However there are Republican districts in Fairfax, so that remains to be seen.

Goodbye Quiet Suburbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. There is actually a good case for this
> NOT effecting Fairfax because it could be a tool
> Democrats use to use against Republican districts.
> However there are Republican districts in Fairfax,
> so that remains to be seen.

Like the IRS and them using it to go after conservative groups? Oh yeah, this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I get the implications, but it that really why the press is silent? I can't by "cuz the liberal media lol". I'm sure it's because no one is really aware of it.

'
Attachments:

Fuck you Obama. People arent going to like this bs.