Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Archives - Help STOP Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

The Senate Votes on AFFH this Week!

This week, the Senate will have a chance to fight back against this misguided power grab, by adopting an amendment to this year’s Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill that would prohibit Department of Housing and Urban Development officials from spending any money to implement the new rule. THEDAILYSIGNAL We Don’t Need a Continue Reading

Smith Young May 16, 2016 Just News Mike Lee, Stanley Kurtz, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development 349 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"