Tag Archives: Fair Housing Act

Attacking Religious Freedom In America

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Townhall posted an article about the Biden administration’s misuse of Title IX to attack Christian schools.

The article reports:

Sometimes, scrolling through the news, you come across a story so ludicrous, so extreme, it seems like someone must have made it up to prove a point. Take, for example, the recent situation at Grant Park Christian Academy in Tampa, where the federal government was threatening to take away school lunches for underprivileged children unless the school allowed, among other things, male students to share lockers, showers, and bathrooms with female students. For Grant Park and other Christian schools and universities that have chosen to uphold their deeply held beliefs, reality is proving crazier than fiction.

The Biden administration has proposed changes to the language of Title IX, a civil rights law designed to prevent sex-based discrimination. The administration is trying to change the meaning of the word “sex” to include “gender identity and sexual orientation.” This seemingly small change would set off a cascade of problems, as it would compel all Americans—regardless of their deeply held beliefs about the nature of sex and gender—to assent to the current radical view that maleness and femaleness are just a matter of individual expression.

The article notes:

Because HUD announced that it would enforce its order through the Fair Housing Act, College of the Ozarks and other colleges across the country—regardless of their beliefs—will be required to house male students in female dorms and vice versa. Colleges will be required to allow students to choose which restrooms, dorms, showers, and locker rooms they want to use—or be shut down.

For College of the Ozarks, that is not an option. Providing safe, comfortable housing for all students is a part of the college’s commitment to its community. That means that no female student should be forced to share private spaces with a male student, and vice versa. But if College of the Ozarks shuts down, countless young people will lose their only chance at higher education. So the college took a stand, and is continuing to fight in court for its right to offer safe, affordable education to its students.

The article concludes:

Fortunately for Grant Park, Alliance Defending Freedom got involved. Just days after ADF filed a lawsuit on Grant Park’s behalf, the USDA issued an exemption and Commissioner Fried approved the school’s request for funding for lunches. The USDA also agreed to automatically respect Title IX exemptions for all religious schools.

So for students at Grant Park Christian Academy, lunch is back on the menu—for now. But if the Biden administration succeeds in changing the definition of sex in Title IX, this extreme gender ideology will be set in stone for all public schools, charter schools, and private secular schools. Schools and colleges that try to stand up for their right to operate according to their deeply held beliefs will be at a disadvantage, and it’s only a matter of time before this crazy reality gets even more bizarre.

The lesson here is that if you want to be free to run your school in accordance with your beliefs, don’t take money from the government. Hillsdale College is a shining example of that principle.

Ending The War On The Suburbs

Posted on by

The New York Post posted an article yesterday about President Trump undoing a policy put in place under President Obama that would impact the freedom of Americans to live where they choose to live in the neighborhoods they choose.

The article reports:

During the Obama administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to install Washington bureaucrats as the decision makers for how communities across all 50 states should grow. Using an obscure rule called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, HUD sought to remake America’s cities, towns and villages by forcing any community that was getting federal funds to meet racial quotas.

To do this, HUD applied the notion of “disparate impact,” which unilaterally deems housing patterns to be discriminatory if minority representation is not evenly spread across the jurisdiction. Communities with high concentrations of minorities are automatically labeled segregated.

Westchester served as the petri dish for HUD’s “grand experiment.” On Jan. 1, 2010, the day I was inaugurated as county executive, a federal consent decree signed by my predecessor went into effect requiring Westchester to spend at least $56 million to build 750 units of affordable housing over the next seven years in 31 white communities — or face crippling financial penalties.

The article details the problems the program created in Westchester County, New York.

The article then notes the solution:

The impasse finally ended with the election of Donald Trump. Elections matter.

But the big win came last month, when — based on Westchester’s experience and expertise from groups like Americans for Limited Government — the Trump administration replaced Team Obama’s AFFH regulation with its own.

Gone is the federal mandate dictating the modeling of communities based on statistical formulas. Restored to local officials is the power that gives them the flexibility to weigh real-world factors in making housing decisions. Restored, too, is the prosecution of bad actors by the courts — not bureaucrats — under the Fair Housing Act.

And builders are now more likely to build affordable housing, since the attached strings have been removed.

The Democratic candidates for president didn’t get the memo. They continue to support radical, divisive and failed housing policies aimed at abolishing single-family residential zoning. And they’d use billions of our tax dollars to local communities — and the threat of lawsuits — to get their way.

The United States needs affordable housing. By replacing social engineering with common sense, guarded by strong nondiscrimination laws, the country is now better positioned to meet that need — and that’s a victory for everyone.

The free market coupled with individual choice and freedom is always the best solution for any problem.

Creating A Catch-22 For Landlords

Posted on by

Owning rental property is one way to plan for your retirement. If you are handy and live close to the property, it can be a very profitable investment. If you don’t live nearby, a good rental agency can handle the details for you.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted a story about a new federal regulation that is going to make being a successful landlord more difficult.

The article reports:

The Obama administration has just made it easier for felons to move in next door. Landlords who don’t want tenants who are going to mug their neighbors or deal drugs will now be treated as racists and potentially sued.

Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued new guidelines to landlords, warning that bans against renters with criminal convictions violate the Fair Housing Act because they disproportionately affect minorities.

In effect, the Obama regime is now outlawing criminal background checks for apartment rentals, even though such screening is critical for the protection and security of tenants and property, and serves a legitimate business need.

In a newly released 10-page missive, HUD warns landlords they can be held liable for discrimination if they deny housing over criminal records.

It gets really interesting when you consider the other side of the coin:

So now landlords, real estate agents and property managers will think twice before turning away drug dealers and thieves, even rapists, who are members of this “protected class” — even though barring high-risk tenants serves a legitimate, nondiscriminatory purpose.

This puts landlords in a terrible legal bind.

To protect themselves from federal action, they would be wise to avoid even inquiring about the criminal records of prospective tenants. But if they fail to adequately screen them and rent to one who robs or hurts a neighbor, they could be sued by the victim for negligence.

No doubt many will see no option but to raise rents to indirectly exclude criminals from their rentals, which will just end up hurting everybody who rents housing — including innocent, law-abiding tenants.

In a move to protect the rights of convicted felons, the federal government has just created problems for the average American. I believe people who are renting property have the right to know the background of their renters. If a landlord feels that a former criminal has changed his ways, he should be free to rent to him. However, if there is no indication that a former criminal has changed his ways, the landlord should have the right to determine whether or not he wants to rent his property to that person.