Court of Appeals Archives - Help STOP Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

Decision & History: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER v. HUD

This is perhaps the longest article posted on this website. It’s a remarkably complete interpretation, rational, and history behind this historic decision. The court said there was “no finding” of discrimination, but largely sided with HUD demonstrating just how much control the federal government has over grantees. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. COUNTY Continue Reading

Smith Young September 30, 2015 Knowledgeable About AFFH,Uncategorized,Westchester County, NY Court of Appeals, second circuit, westchester 318 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"