Help STOP Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

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

Home » Category: HUD Opposition

Video: Blonde joke allegations about Ben Carson’s recent proposal

Love it, this is the epitome of dumb blonde jokes. There are so many misinformed statements and judgemental errors that the only explanation is either lazy research or influence by special interest groups. The problem I have is the implied legitimacy for a video exemplifying that an empty can makes the most noise. You won’t Continue Reading

Smith Young August 14, 2018 HUD Opposition,Just News 1,467 Comments

Elevator Speech

AFFH gives FREE federal grant money to the suburbs. But what they don't tell you is that by taking the money, you the suburbs will be forced to gentrify your neighborhoods with low-income racially diverse high density housing.

1) HUD is imposing requirements that go far beyond what the 1968 Fair Housing Act demands
2) Moves high density low income (rental) housing to the suburbs
3) The new rule restricts private choice, local government authority, and the evolutionary history of American residential growth patterns
4) Uses subsidies (block grants) as blackmail against 1,194 targeted U.S. localities
5) HUD grantees must consider statistical data such as education and transportation that are only remotely related to housing
6) Communities threatened with huge legal expenses from allegations by HUD and Civil Rights groups
7) HUD requires racial analysis of demographic data that should instead be colorblind (race baiting?)

Editors Note

The AFFH rule does not do anything for or against discrimination, it merely revamps the planning process of localities applying for grant monies, replacing Analysis with Assessment using the new Tool.
The AFFH rule neither replaces nor extends the 1968 Fair Housing Act
1) We are against discrimination and we do support the 1968 Fair Housing Act
2) We oppose the AFFH rule and it's anti-American implementation of the Supreme Courts decision on "disparate Impact"