Pearl River Archives - Help STOP Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

How HUD Elites Attack a Little White Community

“Our Town” news for Orangetown, Clarkstown & N. Bergen (NY) Right and Wrong Washington, D.C. elites also have plans for Pearl River by Michael Bongiorno July 20, 2016 Recently, a movement has stirred among some Pearl River residents to incorporate the hamlet as a village. The purpose of the incorporation would be to increase local Continue Reading

Smith Young August 2, 2016 AFFH with Strings Attached,LIHTC & Vouchers clinton, economic segregation, Julián Castro, Michael Bongiorno, Pearl River, Section 8 740 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"