Trump Removes Obama AFFH Rule
- Thread starter douche
- Start date
therewillbeboogienights
All Star
I can't believe I'm seeing black folks cosingning the "poverty is a moral failure" narrative
Everytime I read that nonsense I just roll my eyes.
Meanwhile those same posters worship the rich.
G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman
Logic Is Absent Wherever Hate Is Present
Gotta be willing to stay in the ghetto family. We don't want to leave the community anyway family. And go buy Hidden Colors 29 family.Wait, what does Tariq have to say about Trump's return to redlining and the subsequent screwing over and disenfranchisement of Black people?
While I think there are ppl arguing I. good faith for this action (the removal of the rule) And good points have been made, I can’t help but think trump had racist intent when doing it 
What's funny is that TLR is constantly reminding us how we have the least wealth and definitely need reparations but on THIS subject, all of a sudden it'sto assume black people are impoverished.
How convenient
Hell no I don't want no nikkas in my neighborhood
/Thread
ogc163
Superstar
UberEatsDriver
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2017
- Messages
- 44,110
- Reputation
- 3,079
- Daps
- 99,186
- Reppin
- Brooklyn keeps on taking it.
There’s literally no benefit in being black and being on the bottom of the pole. Racist capitalist America will literally push you around like an animal. That’s why success should be your goal no matter what.
UberEatsDriver
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2017
- Messages
- 44,110
- Reputation
- 3,079
- Daps
- 99,186
- Reppin
- Brooklyn keeps on taking it.
Low income housing are government housing.
Are trailer living run by the government?
I’m sure you meant to say “When I think of poverty I think of trailer trash”.
ogc163
Superstar
ogc163
Superstar
It’s Time to Retire This Scapegoat for Segregation
It’s Time to Retire This Scapegoat for Segregation
I’d spoken at dozens of community public meetings before, but nothing had prepared me for the eye opening and virulent experience that I would face that rainy Tuesday afternoon. As I signed the speaker’s list and squeezed into the standing room only cafeteria at Briargrove Elementary School, I began talking myself out of talking. I’d come to speak on behalf of thousands of families in desperate need of the 233 units that were being proposed in Houston’s upscale Galleria neighborhood. As the president of Houston Housing Authority made his presentation about the mixed income development, an angry crowd of more than 500 people, mostly anglos, loudly interrupted, shouting remarks that were not at all reflective of this oft-touted “post racial” era.
“How will our seniors feel safe?”
“This sounds like the plan they had for bussing years ago!”
“Those people don’t belong here”
After witnessing the verbal assault on the HHA president, I convinced myself that it would be best if my comments were submitted via email. Then my name was called.
Perplexed eyes locked in on me, an African-American woman, as I walked to the podium. I nervously shared that families in search for decent housing, near great jobs, transportation and high performing schools had a right to choose where they lived and not be relegated to other neighborhoods simply because they possessed a housing choice voucher or earned a working class wage. I reminded the angry crowd that “those people” they were villainizing help provide the lifestyle to which the meeting attendees had become accustomed. It seemed that “those people” were good enough to serve, but not to live in, that community. The incessant booing and nasty remarks that punctuated my talk surprisingly fueled a fire inside of me that I didn’t know existed. I ended my comments charging the audience to face their fears and to live the inclusive lifestyle that many of them claim to embrace. As my colleague escorted me to my car afterwards, as it was apparent I was not in a “safe zone,” it dawned on me that I’d just stared NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) in its face.
Almost 50 years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, this discriminatory practice continues to play a major role in the perpetuation of segregation. The benefits of desegregation have not reached major metropolitan cities, like Houston, in the United States. Instead, many city governments too quickly acquiesce to pervasive NIMBY arguments. But such failures to confront and correct the history of racial exclusion carry a high social cost.
Sadly, NIMBY is the typical response to proposed affordable housing development in well-resourced communities. Neighborhoods that offer close proximity to high-performing schools, access to transit, employment centers and quality food choices typically lack affordable places to live — by design. The tenants of subsidized housing are overwhelmingly African-American and Hispanic. Almost always, neighborhoods with organized opposition to affordable development are mostly white.
The Houston Housing Authority’s (HHA) proposal to build a mixed-income development (including some workforce and public housing) near Houston’s upscale Galleria proved the truth of this assertion. The NIMBY backlash was immediate and ferocious, as members of the community made it clear that they did not want the development in their backyard. Many said they were concerned about school overcrowding and increased traffic. Others made comments about the potential residents of the development, making comments including: “They’re going to steal the tires off of our Suburbans. They’re going to bring down our property value!”
This is well-recognized coded language that perpetuates the legacy of racial exclusion. And unfortunately, it provides government with a scapegoat to continue housing policies that lead to segregation. Local governments have historically failed to stand up to NIMBY to promote housing justice for all of its residents.
Especially in Texas, a NIMBY reaction to a housing proposal is usually enough to stop elected officials from supporting a development. After the backlash in Houston, Houston’s Democratic mayor and City Council blocked funding for the project. Although the project required no funding from the city, Texas rules require a resolution of support or no objection. The city did neither, which lead to a federal investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The investigation found Houston in violation of the Civil Rights Act by catering to racially charged NIMBYism. Most recently, Houston’s Mayor Sylvester Turner sent a letter to HUD requesting the Title VI finding be rescinded and stated firmly that the resistance to the project’s approval was related primarily to expensive development costs. Ironically, a similarly proposed project, with similar costs, in a neighborhood with a poverty rate of 35 percent (compared to 6.1 percent in the Galleria neighborhood) was approved by the City Council and is currently under construction.
When government responds to bias from a wealthy white constituency by forsaking low-income black and brown constituents, no one is well served. The wedge between communities is driven deeper, and separateness and place-based racial discrimination grows worse.
NIMBYs often suggest that affordable housing developments should be built in communities that are historically black and brown, so that residents can be near their social networks. The reality is that most of these areas already have a high concentration of subsidized housing. Because they often lack nearby job opportunities, well-resourced schools, convenient transportation, quality infrastructure and other amenities, these areas may suffer increased crime rates, dropout rates and high poverty.
Cities across the nation will be better served when policymakers admit that while they, personally, may not have created a system of segregated housing, it is their responsibility to build diverse, thriving cities. This means making sure every community pays its fair share. We must move past our discomfort and recognize the role race played and still plays in shaping housing policy. We must call out the pretexts that allow for ongoing racial discrimination and segregation. Government officials must stop hiding behind the veil of NIMBY. For the sake of our economy, our safety, our education — and everything that makes our society fair and equitable — we must hold lawmakers accountable for their role in building the diverse communities that we claim to hold dear.
Chrishelle Palay is the Houston co-director at Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, a housing policy advocacy organization. She is a Next City Vanguard alumni and Ford Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.
It’s Time to Retire This Scapegoat for Segregation
I’d spoken at dozens of community public meetings before, but nothing had prepared me for the eye opening and virulent experience that I would face that rainy Tuesday afternoon. As I signed the speaker’s list and squeezed into the standing room only cafeteria at Briargrove Elementary School, I began talking myself out of talking. I’d come to speak on behalf of thousands of families in desperate need of the 233 units that were being proposed in Houston’s upscale Galleria neighborhood. As the president of Houston Housing Authority made his presentation about the mixed income development, an angry crowd of more than 500 people, mostly anglos, loudly interrupted, shouting remarks that were not at all reflective of this oft-touted “post racial” era.
“How will our seniors feel safe?”
“This sounds like the plan they had for bussing years ago!”
“Those people don’t belong here”
After witnessing the verbal assault on the HHA president, I convinced myself that it would be best if my comments were submitted via email. Then my name was called.
Perplexed eyes locked in on me, an African-American woman, as I walked to the podium. I nervously shared that families in search for decent housing, near great jobs, transportation and high performing schools had a right to choose where they lived and not be relegated to other neighborhoods simply because they possessed a housing choice voucher or earned a working class wage. I reminded the angry crowd that “those people” they were villainizing help provide the lifestyle to which the meeting attendees had become accustomed. It seemed that “those people” were good enough to serve, but not to live in, that community. The incessant booing and nasty remarks that punctuated my talk surprisingly fueled a fire inside of me that I didn’t know existed. I ended my comments charging the audience to face their fears and to live the inclusive lifestyle that many of them claim to embrace. As my colleague escorted me to my car afterwards, as it was apparent I was not in a “safe zone,” it dawned on me that I’d just stared NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) in its face.
Almost 50 years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, this discriminatory practice continues to play a major role in the perpetuation of segregation. The benefits of desegregation have not reached major metropolitan cities, like Houston, in the United States. Instead, many city governments too quickly acquiesce to pervasive NIMBY arguments. But such failures to confront and correct the history of racial exclusion carry a high social cost.
Sadly, NIMBY is the typical response to proposed affordable housing development in well-resourced communities. Neighborhoods that offer close proximity to high-performing schools, access to transit, employment centers and quality food choices typically lack affordable places to live — by design. The tenants of subsidized housing are overwhelmingly African-American and Hispanic. Almost always, neighborhoods with organized opposition to affordable development are mostly white.
The Houston Housing Authority’s (HHA) proposal to build a mixed-income development (including some workforce and public housing) near Houston’s upscale Galleria proved the truth of this assertion. The NIMBY backlash was immediate and ferocious, as members of the community made it clear that they did not want the development in their backyard. Many said they were concerned about school overcrowding and increased traffic. Others made comments about the potential residents of the development, making comments including: “They’re going to steal the tires off of our Suburbans. They’re going to bring down our property value!”
This is well-recognized coded language that perpetuates the legacy of racial exclusion. And unfortunately, it provides government with a scapegoat to continue housing policies that lead to segregation. Local governments have historically failed to stand up to NIMBY to promote housing justice for all of its residents.
Especially in Texas, a NIMBY reaction to a housing proposal is usually enough to stop elected officials from supporting a development. After the backlash in Houston, Houston’s Democratic mayor and City Council blocked funding for the project. Although the project required no funding from the city, Texas rules require a resolution of support or no objection. The city did neither, which lead to a federal investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The investigation found Houston in violation of the Civil Rights Act by catering to racially charged NIMBYism. Most recently, Houston’s Mayor Sylvester Turner sent a letter to HUD requesting the Title VI finding be rescinded and stated firmly that the resistance to the project’s approval was related primarily to expensive development costs. Ironically, a similarly proposed project, with similar costs, in a neighborhood with a poverty rate of 35 percent (compared to 6.1 percent in the Galleria neighborhood) was approved by the City Council and is currently under construction.
When government responds to bias from a wealthy white constituency by forsaking low-income black and brown constituents, no one is well served. The wedge between communities is driven deeper, and separateness and place-based racial discrimination grows worse.
NIMBYs often suggest that affordable housing developments should be built in communities that are historically black and brown, so that residents can be near their social networks. The reality is that most of these areas already have a high concentration of subsidized housing. Because they often lack nearby job opportunities, well-resourced schools, convenient transportation, quality infrastructure and other amenities, these areas may suffer increased crime rates, dropout rates and high poverty.
Cities across the nation will be better served when policymakers admit that while they, personally, may not have created a system of segregated housing, it is their responsibility to build diverse, thriving cities. This means making sure every community pays its fair share. We must move past our discomfort and recognize the role race played and still plays in shaping housing policy. We must call out the pretexts that allow for ongoing racial discrimination and segregation. Government officials must stop hiding behind the veil of NIMBY. For the sake of our economy, our safety, our education — and everything that makes our society fair and equitable — we must hold lawmakers accountable for their role in building the diverse communities that we claim to hold dear.
Chrishelle Palay is the Houston co-director at Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, a housing policy advocacy organization. She is a Next City Vanguard alumni and Ford Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.
Controversy
Superstar
It's semantics
G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman
Logic Is Absent Wherever Hate Is Present
I don't wanna see shyt else about no 94 crime bill. This shyt is far worse. And don't tell me shyt about this not only effecting black people while telling me a bill about criminals only effect black folk.
I care more about black folk trying to escape the slums and being discriminated against than I do about convicted criminals getting harsh sentences.
I care more about black folk trying to escape the slums and being discriminated against than I do about convicted criminals getting harsh sentences.
G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman
Logic Is Absent Wherever Hate Is Present
Only 26 pages yet the thread about Kamala... 