It was a defeat for banks, insurance companies and other business groups that claimed such lawsuits — often based on statistics — are not explicitly allowed under the landmark housing law that sought to eliminate segregation that has long existed in residential housing.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Alternative
Jun 25, 15 5:12 pm
Is this just a "diversity mandate" for middle-class and higher-income communities?
kickrocks
Jun 25, 15 5:15 pm
I don't know, you posted it. I copied that off some article. Seems like SCOTUS simply reinforced the status quo of allowing lawsuits and challenges to be filed in a 5-4 vote. The legislators were always afraid a conservative panel might overrule everything but guess not.
Alternative
Jun 25, 15 5:24 pm
The decision discusses how plaintiffs can bring claims for violations of the Fair Housing Act on account of "disparate impact." Here's a discussion from SCOTUSblog:
"Although it has always been clear that the Act outlawed housing discrimination when the landlord, developer, or government agency acted with the specific intent to discriminate, a question has lingered whether the law also allowed claims of 'disparate impact' — that is, claims that a given housing policy or decision had a more negative impact on race (or other protected categories) than on others seeking housing, even though there was no proof of an intent to discriminate.
[...]
The issue had reached the Supreme Court in a new case — the third try to get the Justices to decide the issue — from Texas, involving claims by a group seeking to desegregate racial housing patterns in the Dallas metro area that a state agency was placing too many subsidized housing projects in minority-dominated neighborhoods, avoiding putting projects in white-dominated suburbs. The argument was that the agency’s policies had a “disparate impact” on racial minority occupants of the projects."
Does this decision place the onus on developers receiving tax subsidies to develop low-income housing in middle-class neighborhoods? Will this decision have an effect on property values in middle class suburban communities?
kickrocks
Jun 25, 15 5:36 pm
There isn't anything changed except for SCOTUS nodding their heads at an existing law. The verdict allows these suits/challenges to happen without needing some sort of indisputable proof because that certainly won't come by easy.
You still need to prove discrimination. There's no mandate.
Alternative
Jun 25, 15 5:50 pm
But if you can show disparate impact, you've made a claim—and there would be an effective mandate to build in communities that are not minority-dominated (read between the lines: not predominantly populated by poor blacks).
I guess the question is, why must low-income housing be built in communities that are not low-income (assuming that low-income communities are minority-dominated)? Will the construction of low-income housing in middle-class communities alleviate the plight of poor minorities?
This case was not decided on constitutional principles. It was decided on federal statutes that Congress amended in 1988. I'm not debating about how the existing law should be read. I'm asking what we think the law should be—and why.
kickrocks
Jun 25, 15 5:59 pm
It's quite obvious, isn't it? If you think there's some sketchy things going on and have informal proof, like everyone living there knows and agrees but won't do anything for their own best interests, why can't you do something about it?
Proving discrimination is tough. It can be covert. It can be hidden away in a fake front. Double speak, cryptic words. I don't know how many times I need to repeat it but all the verdict really says is the federal housing law allows someone to raise a raucous without a pristine burden of proof.
I'm not going to read between the lines. It'll be business as usual. Your precious communities won't change one bit. If you don't know why housing segregation is a problem, look that up. Taxes, schools, better environment--doesn't take more than functioning eyes to tell the difference.
Alternative
Jun 25, 15 6:09 pm
kickrocks, no intentional discrimination needs to be proven—you keep on repeating yourself, but it's clear that you don't actually understand what the decision says (also, FYI, it's spelled "ruckus"). All that needs to be proven is that the tax credit results disparately impacts certain minorities (i.e. housing projects are built in predominantly black communities only, and not in white communities). Zero intent need to be shown. Appellate courts had held this way, but the law had never officially been settled by the Supreme Court, as far as the FHA went.
What about the consequences that low-income housing will have on middle class communities where they're built? Particularly since many middle class Americans use their homes as investment vehicles? I don't think that the benefits are as self-evident as you make them out to be.
kickrocks
Jun 25, 15 6:33 pm
Shut the fuck up about a misspelled word. You get the point, it's a real word just the adjective form, oh well.
Does the federal law allow challenges on the basis of discrimination? Yes. Done. We know SCOTUS doesn't do shit but since you keep expecting it to mean something legally, I told you the result. Whether that actually scares anyone off or sets a precedent who knows but assume the status quo.
Now, your other question is unrelated to this verdict. It's a tangential point that is relevant but not going to gain any major victories. What are the consequences of low-income housing in better neighborhoods? Well, you'd see poor people around, maybe your gardener or maid working closer to work. There will be kids in school who don't have sweet sixteens or summer vacations overseas or going to a mediocre private college. Basically, I mean there will be non-whites in your area. Ones that haven't sold their own people out yet and share conservative political beliefs. They might be taking over the entry-level position at Subway that was reserved for a jock or princess only willing to work five hours a week.
If you're implying that the poor will somehow be a plague on communities, well, there's not much I can change you on that. Middle-class America is a paycheck or two late from tuning into poor schmucks themselves. Won't matter too much to them because they're already economically squeezed. Upper-class communities will be able to circumvent as always, no problem.
Alternative
Jun 25, 15 6:42 pm
LOL- Your argument: the middle class are fucked anyway, and they're all a bunch of jocks and princesses, so fuck them if their property values do go down.
Anyone else who doesn't rely on baseless rhetoric care to weigh in on the question?
kickrocks
Jun 25, 15 6:44 pm
Ad hominem, good for you.
Alternative
Jun 25, 15 6:59 pm
Just restating your argument.
JeromeS
Jun 25, 15 7:37 pm
What are the consequences of low-income housing in better neighborhoods? Well, you'd see poor people around, maybe your gardener or maid working closer to work. There will be kids in school who don't have sweet sixteens or summer vacations overseas or going to a mediocre private college. Basically, I mean there will be non-whites in your area. Ones that haven't sold their own people out yet and share conservative political beliefs. They might be taking over the entry-level position at Subway that was reserved for a jock or princess only willing to work five hours a week.
C'mon- everybody knows poor people don't work, so the gardener or maid will still have to come from somewhere else, some other class of flop-housing where the zoning is loosely enforced and they can get away with it.
What, are you racist? All white people are rich or middle class? All poor people are non-white? "Jocks and princesses" and you have the balls to throw up Ad Hominem?
I don't care what color they are, I don't want to live next to scumbags, thugs, ne'erdowells or whatever other epithet-du-jour you want to come up with. Neither do most people. In fact the courts in some States agree, finding families in failing school districts (warning, code word; urban) have a right to send their children out of district to "better" schools
So, people will move away, leaving the poor, segregated once again. And, we'll tear down one set of "projects", only to build a-new, always hoping the good apples rub off on the rotten ones. Rarely (that's being polite) happens though does it?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf
Thoughts?
cant you just tell me what to think?
It was a defeat for banks, insurance companies and other business groups that claimed such lawsuits — often based on statistics — are not explicitly allowed under the landmark housing law that sought to eliminate segregation that has long existed in residential housing.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Is this just a "diversity mandate" for middle-class and higher-income communities?
I don't know, you posted it. I copied that off some article. Seems like SCOTUS simply reinforced the status quo of allowing lawsuits and challenges to be filed in a 5-4 vote. The legislators were always afraid a conservative panel might overrule everything but guess not.
The decision discusses how plaintiffs can bring claims for violations of the Fair Housing Act on account of "disparate impact." Here's a discussion from SCOTUSblog:
"Although it has always been clear that the Act outlawed housing discrimination when the landlord, developer, or government agency acted with the specific intent to discriminate, a question has lingered whether the law also allowed claims of 'disparate impact' — that is, claims that a given housing policy or decision had a more negative impact on race (or other protected categories) than on others seeking housing, even though there was no proof of an intent to discriminate.
[...]
The issue had reached the Supreme Court in a new case — the third try to get the Justices to decide the issue — from Texas, involving claims by a group seeking to desegregate racial housing patterns in the Dallas metro area that a state agency was placing too many subsidized housing projects in minority-dominated neighborhoods, avoiding putting projects in white-dominated suburbs. The argument was that the agency’s policies had a “disparate impact” on racial minority occupants of the projects."
See more: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-a-civil-rights-law-made-broader-but-not-too-broad/
Does this decision place the onus on developers receiving tax subsidies to develop low-income housing in middle-class neighborhoods? Will this decision have an effect on property values in middle class suburban communities?
There isn't anything changed except for SCOTUS nodding their heads at an existing law. The verdict allows these suits/challenges to happen without needing some sort of indisputable proof because that certainly won't come by easy.
You still need to prove discrimination. There's no mandate.
But if you can show disparate impact, you've made a claim—and there would be an effective mandate to build in communities that are not minority-dominated (read between the lines: not predominantly populated by poor blacks).
I guess the question is, why must low-income housing be built in communities that are not low-income (assuming that low-income communities are minority-dominated)? Will the construction of low-income housing in middle-class communities alleviate the plight of poor minorities?
This case was not decided on constitutional principles. It was decided on federal statutes that Congress amended in 1988. I'm not debating about how the existing law should be read. I'm asking what we think the law should be—and why.
It's quite obvious, isn't it? If you think there's some sketchy things going on and have informal proof, like everyone living there knows and agrees but won't do anything for their own best interests, why can't you do something about it?
Proving discrimination is tough. It can be covert. It can be hidden away in a fake front. Double speak, cryptic words. I don't know how many times I need to repeat it but all the verdict really says is the federal housing law allows someone to raise a raucous without a pristine burden of proof.
I'm not going to read between the lines. It'll be business as usual. Your precious communities won't change one bit. If you don't know why housing segregation is a problem, look that up. Taxes, schools, better environment--doesn't take more than functioning eyes to tell the difference.
kickrocks, no intentional discrimination needs to be proven—you keep on repeating yourself, but it's clear that you don't actually understand what the decision says (also, FYI, it's spelled "ruckus"). All that needs to be proven is that the tax credit results disparately impacts certain minorities (i.e. housing projects are built in predominantly black communities only, and not in white communities). Zero intent need to be shown. Appellate courts had held this way, but the law had never officially been settled by the Supreme Court, as far as the FHA went.
What about the consequences that low-income housing will have on middle class communities where they're built? Particularly since many middle class Americans use their homes as investment vehicles? I don't think that the benefits are as self-evident as you make them out to be.
Shut the fuck up about a misspelled word. You get the point, it's a real word just the adjective form, oh well.
Does the federal law allow challenges on the basis of discrimination? Yes. Done. We know SCOTUS doesn't do shit but since you keep expecting it to mean something legally, I told you the result. Whether that actually scares anyone off or sets a precedent who knows but assume the status quo.
Now, your other question is unrelated to this verdict. It's a tangential point that is relevant but not going to gain any major victories. What are the consequences of low-income housing in better neighborhoods? Well, you'd see poor people around, maybe your gardener or maid working closer to work. There will be kids in school who don't have sweet sixteens or summer vacations overseas or going to a mediocre private college. Basically, I mean there will be non-whites in your area. Ones that haven't sold their own people out yet and share conservative political beliefs. They might be taking over the entry-level position at Subway that was reserved for a jock or princess only willing to work five hours a week.
If you're implying that the poor will somehow be a plague on communities, well, there's not much I can change you on that. Middle-class America is a paycheck or two late from tuning into poor schmucks themselves. Won't matter too much to them because they're already economically squeezed. Upper-class communities will be able to circumvent as always, no problem.
LOL- Your argument: the middle class are fucked anyway, and they're all a bunch of jocks and princesses, so fuck them if their property values do go down.
Anyone else who doesn't rely on baseless rhetoric care to weigh in on the question?
Ad hominem, good for you.
Just restating your argument.
What are the consequences of low-income housing in better neighborhoods? Well, you'd see poor people around, maybe your gardener or maid working closer to work. There will be kids in school who don't have sweet sixteens or summer vacations overseas or going to a mediocre private college. Basically, I mean there will be non-whites in your area. Ones that haven't sold their own people out yet and share conservative political beliefs. They might be taking over the entry-level position at Subway that was reserved for a jock or princess only willing to work five hours a week.
C'mon- everybody knows poor people don't work, so the gardener or maid will still have to come from somewhere else, some other class of flop-housing where the zoning is loosely enforced and they can get away with it.
What, are you racist? All white people are rich or middle class? All poor people are non-white? "Jocks and princesses" and you have the balls to throw up Ad Hominem?
I don't care what color they are, I don't want to live next to scumbags, thugs, ne'erdowells or whatever other epithet-du-jour you want to come up with. Neither do most people. In fact the courts in some States agree, finding families in failing school districts (warning, code word; urban) have a right to send their children out of district to "better" schools
So, people will move away, leaving the poor, segregated once again. And, we'll tear down one set of "projects", only to build a-new, always hoping the good apples rub off on the rotten ones. Rarely (that's being polite) happens though does it?