Detroit Archives - Help STOP Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

Wall Street Journal: Houston and Detroit Are Leading the Way in Urban Innovation without HUD

Edited by Smith Young “:)”, A fresh perspective from the WSJ on American cities Houston and Detroit showing how evolving cities are solving their problems with innovation without interference from HUD and the new AFFH rule. The million dollar question is, what will happen when HUD begins implementing AFFH in Houston and Detroit? Evidence appears to show that the trend of Continue Reading

Smith Young May 3, 2016 Just News,Uncategorized Detroit, Houston, pink zones, urbanism, zoning 268 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"