Help STOP Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

Unabashed Truth about AFFH, Protecting Property Rights and Local Government Authority

Home » Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing for Dummies

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing for Dummies

This For Dummies page is the how to get started introduction for those of you learning about Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, AFFH, for the first time.  After catching up on the information below, continue your journey next with easy to follow posts; return to  the AFFH for Dummies menu and select “Strings Attached” or “Just News” for additional easy to follow articles.

What is the new rule?

For your convenience, the following introduction by Stanley Kurtz, Harvard PHD is followed by a short video by John Anthony.

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 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 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.

The plan has three elements: 1) Inhibit suburban growth, and when possible encourage suburban re-migration to cities. This can be achieved, for example, through regional growth boundaries (as in Portland), or by relative neglect of highway-building and repair in favor of public transportation. 2) Force the urban poor into the suburbs through the imposition of low-income housing quotas. 3) Institute “regional tax-base sharing,” where a state forces upper-middle-class suburbs to transfer tax revenue to nearby cities and less-well-off inner-ring suburbs (as in Minneapolis/St. Paul).

If you press suburbanites into cities, transfer urbanites to the suburbs, and redistribute suburban tax money to cities, you have effectively abolished the suburbs. For all practical purposes, the suburbs would then be co-opted into a single metropolitan region. Advocates of these policy prescriptions call themselves “regionalists.”

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, AFFH, goes a long way toward achieving the regionalist program of Obama and his organizing mentors. In significant measure, the rule amounts to a de facto regional annexation of America’s suburbs. To see why, let’s have a look at the rule.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 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.

By itself, this amounts to an extraordinary takeover of America’s cities and towns by the federal government. There is more, however.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates grantees to conduct all of these analyses at both the local and regional levels. In other words, it’s not enough for, say, Philadelphia’s “Mainline” Montgomery 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. Those suburbs are also obligated to compare their own housing situations to the Greater Philadelphia region as a whole.

So if some Montgomery County’s suburbs are predominantly upper-middle-class, white, and zoned for single-family housing, while the Philadelphia region as a whole is dotted with concentrations of less-well-off African Americans, Hispanics, or Asians, those suburbs could be obligated to nullify their zoning ordinances and build high-density, low-income housing at their own expense. At that point, those suburbs would have to direct advertising to potential minority occupants in the Greater Philadelphia region. Essentially, this is what HUD has imposed on Westchester County, New York, the most famous dry-run for AFFH.

In other words, by obligating all localities receiving HUD funding to compare their demographics to the region as a whole, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, 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. 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.

It’s easy to miss the de facto absorption of local governments into their surrounding regions by Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, AFFH, because the rule disguises it. AFFH does contain a provision that allows individual jurisdictions to formally join a regional consortium. Yet the rule leaves it up to local authorities to decide whether to enter regional groupings — or at least the rule appears to make participation in regional decision-making voluntary. In truth, however, just by obligating grantees to compare their housing to the demographics of the greater metropolitan area, and remedy any disparities, HUD has effectively turned every suburban jurisdiction into a helpless satellite of its nearby city and region.

We can see this, because the final version of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, AFFH, includes much more than just the provisions of the rule itself. The final text of the regulation incorporates summaries of the many public comments on the preliminary rule, along with replies to those comments by HUD. This amounts to a running dialogue between leftist housing activists trying to make the rule more controlling, local bureaucrats overwhelmed by paperwork, a public outraged by federal overreach, and HUD itself.

Stanley Kurtz

 

The New HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule

As concerned citizens, we feel our local officials need to be alerted to this threat of federal takeover by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, sly and affectively heating up the water so slowly that the frog won’t jump out of the pan, specifically, the new AFFH rule (new as of July 2015):
  • Expose our community to millions in lawsuits when either HUD or third party disagree with local government analysis using the new AFFH tool
  • Rob local control from the elected officials we know and instead hand it over to local government employees under the thumb and supervision of DC bureaucrats
  • Will increase taxes by requiring our communities to expand and build an infrastructure for low income housing that strains our highways, and schools, etc. and in some cases extends the cities with light rail
  • Destroy our property values

Following is the short list of problems reported during the 30-day review period after the new Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, AFFH, rule went into affect July 16, 2015:
1.  HUD is attempting to impose requirements that go beyond what the 1968 Fair Housing Act demands

2.  The new rule attempts to block private choice and the history of American growth in establishing new residential patterns

3.  Considering statistical data relating to issues remotely related to housing such as education and transportation

4.   Race baiting analysis using HUD provided demographic data that should be colorblind, but isn’t

Congratulations, you have now completed your introduction to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *