Obama Administration Using Housing Department to Compel Diversity in Neighborhoods

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by supremecommander
There shouldn't be anyone trying to force diversity, unless you can find examples of people trying to acquire homes in non diverse neighborhoods are being discriminated against because they aren't like the majority in that area.

That's a whole separate issue. That's discrimination in housing. There are laws against that.

THIS is about forcing diversity. It's about the government tracking racial data for neighborhoods and, if the statistics aren't what they want for 'diversity', they will 'encourage' (strong arm) banks to give minorities money in order to get them into the neighborhoods that the government wants. (even if those minorities can't afford to keep up the property in that neighborhood or can't afford house payments) It's cultural engineering. And it'll lead to disaster like the recent housing crisis. It'll fail like forced busing.

yeah UNLESS those in the "majority" in the area are "minorities", then it becomes only "reasonable they want to do that. :shk: this happened near where i once lived. there was a new housing development going in, ALL the advertising and such was in CHINESE, anyone who WASN'T CHINESE (and even a specific "type" of Chinese apparently) was SHUNNED, they would not even talk to you, even claiming (no speak English). yet it was ALLOWED to happen and people who complained were told " they had every "right" to do so", and " why are you trying to cause problems".

This is just Agenda 21 implementation.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Comparing your neighborhood to the rest of the country is pointless. I live in a diverse neighborhood/town as well. Even our manufactured home neighborhood (They used to be called trailer parks) is well maintained. What little crime here is usually attributed to drunk & disorderly.

But the town zoning laws have a clamp on what can and can’t be built and where. It costs a pretty penny to live here. Taxes and School levies are always rising, but the town actually seems to have a grasp on how to spend the taxes. The School levies are a whole different matter.

When the housing development was announced, houses and businesses started putting out for sale signs. When the plan failed, many of those signs went away.

The Section 8 housing development failed in my town because, even with Government assistance, many would still not be able to afford to live here. This is done by design and racism is not a component of it.

Section 8 housing equals poverty levels which equals more crime in the area. What town wants more crime...well, with the exception of maybe Chicago, Detriot, St. Louis, etc. You know, all those cities that seem to encourage Section 8.

Originally posted by supremecommander

What wealth does Middle Class America have left? This populace has been pillaged beyond belief.

Property is a form of wealth. Granted it is taxed annually, but it can still be leveraged to make your life better.

BTW...as an fyi to all...Section 8 HUD housing isn't strictly a minority thing. There are several white Americans that partake in the program as well.

FYI.

Ummmmm....we all know that.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by wirefly
There goes the neighborhood.
Don't get your panties in a wad. If you read that as being a racist statement, you're the racist by applying that one sided meaning to it. What I'm saying is absolutely true. It doesn't matter what your race is, when you have a neighborhood that works, you don't want someone of a completely different social structure moving in.

My neighborhood is very diverse. We have a high percentage of east Indians, Koreans, Chinese, etc. I love the diversity - not to mention we've got some fantastic ethnic food restaurants in our neighborhood.

Exactly my point. It works. You love your neighborhood. Everyone is there because they want to be there. They came and saw it and decided to move there.
So would it still be the same if the government forced in a bunch of people that didn't want to be there ?

It's the same way on the films that I work on. It is VERY diverse and everyone there is there because they WANT to be there. I know of no person that I work with or have ever worked with that didn't want to be there. It's hard work and crazy long hours and difficult situations and highly stressful. If you force someone to be there, they'll be miserable and make it miserable for others.

Oh, and lucky you by the way. It sounds like a great neighborhood. Sounds like my apartment in New Orleans. Love it there.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Can you provide proof of that? Everything that I've read says that Obama represented ACORN once (with a team of other lawyers), and that was regarding rights to register to vote when getting a drivers license.

Plaintiffs in 1995 Obama Led Citibank Lawsuit Submitted Class Action Claims

he Daily Caller obtained the previously unpublished records for all of Barack Obama’s clients in the 1995 lawsuit “Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank.” Obama was named as the lead attorney for two of the three named plaintiffs in the case. ...

The case is emblematic of the subprime mortgage crisis, caused in large part by lenders extending credit to borrowers who, like many of the “Buycks” plaintiffs, were not creditworthy. As a result, countless homes were foreclosed and property values have plummeted in many metropolitan areas of the United States.

At least 46 of Obama’s 186 clients have declared bankruptcy since 1996, often multiple times.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Wait... did you just write that Obama forced the banks to give out those loans??? Seriously?

Seriously. When Obama was a lawyer with ACORN, Obama SUED CITIBANK and forced it to give out bad loans to minorities. The banks knew that these loans wouldn't ever be paid back. But ACORN lawyer Obama forced the bad loans. This contributed to the housing crisis.

Okay, read the link. Interesting blog

Looking at the court documents, I don't see how ACORN is involved. It looks like individuals suing Citbank as part of a class action suit claiming discrimination based on race. The allegation was that these individuals had similar financial situations to white persons, but were rejected solely on the basis of race. It's interesting to note that none of these individuals were trying to buy new homes. They were all just refinancing existing homes - and they were not in arrears in their mortgage payments. Looks like Citbank settled the suit (which tells me they were guilty enough not to want it to go any further).

In looking at the end of the court document, it lists the attorneys for the plaintiffs - I don't see Obama's name on there at all.

www.clearinghouse.net...

So, tell me again how Obama forced all those banks to give out loans that couldn't be paid back?

It looks like HUD would derive most of it's influence it situations where a home loan is needed. But what are they going to do when a no loan purchase is done? Would they deny someone from buying property outright because they belong to the majority race in a neighborhood and want other races to move in for "diversity's sake"?

How will this little experience work in neighborhoods with only 1 million dollar homes and higher? Or is this only for the peasants? What about inner city neighborhoods, would a minority be denied a home loan because there isn't enough other races and too much of one already?

Another example of government getting involved in something that it has no business in and will only make it worse. One last question, why is "race" such an important thing to liberals, it dominates their lives and almost all their decision making? It seems they are not happy until they can label everyone into a separate group instead of treating everyone equal and color blind.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
So, tell me again how Obama forced all those banks to give out loans that couldn't be paid back?

Not ALL those banks. Citibank. And that contributed to the housing crisis. It all did.

Info Here

B­uy­cks-Rob­erson­ v­. Ci­t­i­b­an­k F­ed. Sav­. B­an­k F­ai­r Housi­n­g/L­en­di­n­g/I­n­suran­ce

Docket­ / Court­ 94 C 4094 ( N­.D. I­l­l­. ) F­H-I­L­-0011

St­at­e/T­erri­t­ory­ I­l­l­i­n­oi­s

P­la­int­iffs filed­ t­heir cla­ss a­ct­io­n la­w­suit­ o­n July 6, 1994, a­lleg­ing­ t­ha­t­ Cit­iba­nk­ ha­d­ eng­a­g­ed­ in red­lining­ p­ra­ct­ices in t­he Chica­g­o­ m­et­ro­p­o­lit­a­n a­rea­ in vio­la­t­io­n o­f t­he Equa­l Cred­it­ O­p­p­o­rt­unit­y A­ct­ (ECO­A­), 15 U.S.C. 1691; t­he Fa­ir Ho­using­ A­ct­, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; t­he T­hirt­eent­h A­m­end­m­ent­ t­o­ t­he U.S. Co­nst­it­ut­io­n; a­nd­ 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. P­la­int­iffs a­lleg­ed­ t­ha­t­ t­he D­efend­a­nt­-ba­nk­ reject­ed­ lo­a­n a­p­p­lica­t­io­ns o­f m­ino­rit­y a­p­p­lica­nt­s w­hile a­p­p­ro­ving­ lo­a­n a­p­p­lica­t­io­ns filed­ by w­hit­e a­p­p­lica­nt­s w­it­h sim­ila­r fina­ncia­l cha­ra­ct­erist­ics a­nd­ cred­it­ hist­o­ries. P­la­int­iffs so­ug­ht­ injunct­ive relief, a­ct­ua­l d­a­m­a­g­es, a­nd­ p­unit­ive d­a­m­a­g­es.

U.S. D­ist­rict­ Co­urt­ Jud­g­e Ruben Ca­st­illo­ cert­ified­ t­he P­la­int­iffs’ suit­ a­s a­ cla­ss a­ct­io­n o­n June 30, 1995. Buyck­s-Ro­berso­n v. Cit­iba­nk­ Fed­. Sa­v. Ba­nk­, 162 F.R.D­. 322 (N.D­. Ill. 1995). A­lso­ o­n June 30, Jud­g­e Ca­st­illo­ g­ra­nt­ed­ P­la­int­iffs’ m­o­t­io­n t­o­ co­m­p­el d­isco­very o­f a­ sa­m­p­le o­f D­efend­a­nt­-ba­nk­’s lo­a­n a­p­p­lica­t­io­n files. Buyck­s-Ro­berso­n v. Cit­iba­nk­ Fed­. Sa­v. Ba­nk­, 162 F.R.D­. 338 (N.D­. Ill. 1995).

Case Profile

Plaintiff's Lawyers include -

Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

Obama Pushed Banks to Give SubPrime Loans to Chicago's African Americans

President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.

Ya'll see t hat??? HALF of the loans went bankrupt and only 19 of the 186 subprime loan homeowners that he forced on Citibank still own homes with clean credit ratings.

:shk: He's part of the reason this country is in a financial mess. He contributed to the housing mess. And now he's doing it again. He's either incapable of learning from his mistakes or he simply doesn't care who he screws over in order to get 'stuff' to african-americans .. including housing that they simply can't afford and don't have the money to maintain.

reply to post by FlyersFan


If Obama was involved in this suit, it only means he was fighting discrimination - and I still don't see that he was doing this on behalf of ACORN. These people were just trying to refinance their current mortgages. They already had mortgages - and they weren't being foreclosed on. Do you have proof that they were behind in their mortgage payments at the time of their loan applications? How did this particular suit contribute to the housing bubble?

I'll bet you can look at the general population and find a large percentage of non-black people who foreclosed or declared bankruptcy. It's been a rough time for everyone. Just because some of the people in the suit foreclosed or declared bankruptcy doesn't mean Obama is responsible.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

If Obama was involved in this suit, it only means he was fighting discrimination - and I still don't see that he was doing this on behalf of ACORN. These people were just trying to refinance their current mortgages. They already had mortgages - and they weren't being foreclosed on. Do you have proof that they were behind in their mortgage payments at the time of their loan applications? How did this particular suit contribute to the housing bubble?

I'll bet you can look at the general population and find a large percentage of non-black people who foreclosed or declared bankruptcy. It's been a rough time for everyone. Just because some of the people in the suit foreclosed or declared bankruptcy doesn't mean Obama is responsible.

edit on 9-8-2013 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

He wasn't "fighting discrimination." He was doing what leftist activists have been doing for a while: forcing businesses to do charity. They were not given the loans they wanted because they had bad credit and could not afford them. Instead of letting the market take its course, lawsuits like these in addition to similar regulations from the fed put millions of people into debt they could not afford and thus the housing bubble that burst. Is Obama the only one to blame? Of course not, you have idiots like Barney Frank to blame too, but he was part of the problem that caused the downswing of the economy...a downswing that ironically helped get him elected as an empty suit.

Diversity and Altruism are good and necessary for the creative progress of a society. Forced diversity (quotas) and forced altruism (socialism and higher taxation) are pure evil because they create a psychological backlash that leads to the opposite of what is supposed to be accomplished. The people in the Obama Administration are either dumb as a knob or deliberately evil.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
If Obama was involved in this suit, it only means he was fighting discrimination -

He was fighting banks being responsible. He was forcing them to be irresponsible.
And we now know that the banks were correct and Obama/ACORN was wrong.
90% of the clients Obama pushed loans through for ... have since FAILED.
Of course this behavior contributes greatly to the financial crisis in this country.
And .. This new Obama push to compel diversity in neighborhoods will do the same.

and I still don't see that he was doing this on behalf of ACORN.

He was an ACORN lawyer.
The people went through ACORN to get their lawyers (Obama being one of them).
ACORN isn't on the lawsuit. I wouldn't be.
The people and the ACORN lawyers are. Obama was an ACORN lawyer.

Just because some of the people in the suit foreclosed or declared bankruptcy doesn't mean Obama is responsible.

I guess you missed this part. I'll repost so you are sure to see it.
Only 19 of the 186 clients still have a home and/or good credit.
That is a 90% FAILURE rate. That's more than 'some'. That's almost ALL.

Obama Pushed Banks to Give SubPrime Loans to Chicago's African Americans

President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

BTW...as an fyi to all...Section 8 HUD housing isn't strictly a minority thing. There are several white Americans that partake in the program as well.

FYI.

Ummmmm....we all know that.

Just wanted to make sure, since there seemed to be the insinuation that minorities are the only one getting low income housing.

I wouldn't past some folks on here to think that only blacks/latinos etc are living off of the taxpayer's dime while whites aren't.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by kaylaluv
If Obama was involved in this suit, it only means he was fighting discrimination -

He was fighting banks being responsible. He was forcing them to be irresponsible.

NO. The law suit alleged that on paper, these individuals should have been accepted (currently employed, salary levels appropriate, current up-to-date mortgages, acceptable credit ratings, etc.). The law suit alleged that these individuals were turned down simply because they were black, and their homes weren't in the nicest neighborhoods. There was no verdict because the bank settled (gee I wonder why they did that). If the banks were being responsible, why didn't they just go through the trial and prove their case? Here's what you keep overlooking: THESE PEOPLE ALREADY OWNED HOMES. They already got approved on loans. They were making their mortgage payments. They were simply refinancing.

And we now know that the banks were correct and Obama/ACORN was wrong.
90% of the clients Obama pushed loans through for ... have since FAILED.

You are talking about the Chicago urban area. You could take any group of 186 people in that area and find 90% of them in financial trouble now. Those same 186 people were probably much better off before 2008, especially those who ALREADY OWNED HOMES. That has NOTHING to do with this particular case. Lots and lots of white people also foreclosed on their homes since 2008. Banks gave out lots of loans to blacks AND whites that failed. Why were the banks being irresponsible with those white folks? Was someone forcing them?

He was an ACORN lawyer.
The people went through ACORN to get their lawyers (Obama being one of them).

NO. He was not an ACORN employee. He worked for the law office of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland. He represented ACORN once while working for this law firm, on a voter registration case (along with 2 other lawyers). He worked on other cases that had nothing to do with ACORN. Just because ACORN hired his law firm on a law suit, doesn't make Obama an ACORN lawyer.

articles.latimes.com...

i don't see a problem with this so far, i mean even if the government forces the banks to give loans to minorities so they can move into better neighborhoods, it's not like white people are being targeted and forced to move elsewhere as a result.

another point is that not every white majority neighborhood is rich or even middle class so not all these loans will go unpaid if they have limited income, and another point is that this will not effect property value even if big apartment facilities spring up everywhere, property value isn't so simple as to be determined by one singular aspect, if more move in it might even increase the value if it creates more opportunities for business, if it causes expansion of neighborhoods and if minorities move to white areas they will likely find jobs easier and in the end we might see increased prosperity overall in these neighborhoods.

as it is without diversity or constant change anything will stagnate and breakdown, it's no different in housing or social structures, people need to stop fearing change so much. i mean sure in the now this might cause trouble in terms of increased interest rates and other bank related factors but it will pay off in the long run and overall cost will be lowered and minorities will have a chance to escape the trap they've been stuck in for so long.

lets not forget that within the next thirty years minorities will drive almost half of the US economy and if we don't do something right now about the economic and social disparity it will mean disaster for this country as a whole, it could very well lead to a total economic collapse, revolution or actual civil war if things remain as they are now in thirty years, we really don't have time to worry over short term things right now if we want to prevent disaster.

Originally posted by namehere
i don't see a problem with this so far, i mean even if the government forces the banks to give loans to minorities so they can move into better neighborhoods, it's not like white people are being targeted and forced to move elsewhere as a result.

another point is that not every white majority neighborhood is rich or even middle class so not all these loans will go unpaid if they have limited income, and another point is that this will not effect property value even if big apartment facilities spring up everywhere, property value isn't so simple as to be determined by one singular aspect, if more move in it might even increase the value if it creates more opportunities for business, if it causes expansion of neighborhoods and if minorities move to white areas they will likely find jobs easier and in the end we might see increased prosperity overall in these neighborhoods.

as it is without diversity or constant change anything will stagnate and breakdown, it's no different in housing or social structures, people need to stop fearing change so much. i mean sure in the now this might cause trouble in terms of increased interest rates and other bank related factors but it will pay off in the long run and overall cost will be lowered and minorities will have a chance to escape the trap they've been stuck in for so long.

lets not forget that within the next thirty years minorities will drive almost half of the US economy and if we don't do something right now about the economic and social disparity it will mean disaster for this country as a whole, it could very well lead to a total economic collapse, revolution or actual civil war if things remain as they are now in thirty years, we really don't have time to worry over short term things right now if we want to prevent disaster.

It has nothing to do with fearing change, diversity, or minorities. It has to do with two fundamental principles:

1). The idea that government to force businesses to make such economic decisions is outside the enumerated powers of our federal government.

2). That forcing banks to make loans to people who demonstrably cannot afford them and are at high risk for default is an economically disastrous policy as evidenced by the last decade.

Overreaching governmental control and bad economic decisions just to pander to a certain class of people or one's own idea of "social justice," are very bad things.

reply to post by NavyDoc


What caused the housing bubble was greedy banks and deregulation. Black people didn't cause the housing bubble. Obama didn't cause the housing bubble. Predatory lending also helped cause the housing bubble.

www.foreclosurefish.com...

reply to post by Skyfloating


Or both