CNA Staff, Jul 29, 2020 / 04:00 pm (CNA).-
Changes to federal fair housing rules undermine the government’s responsibility to guide efforts to overcome the legacy of racial discrimination and economic segregation, U.S. bishops said Tuesday.
“Fair housing regulations remain one of the key tools for addressing long standing inequities and historical disadvantages and must be strengthened, not weakened,” leading figures in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities said in a July 28 statement.
The statement responded to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s decision to replace the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule with a new rule that will have less regulation.
“HUD’s replacement of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule undermines efforts to promote fair housing and human dignity,” they said.
“Discriminatory practices such as redlining, disinvestment from communities, discriminatory practices in selling or renting homes, and racial and economic segregation have undermined fair housing for generations and continue to harm communities of color today. HUD’s new rule minimizes the affirmative responsibility to promote fair housing by removing clear guidance and effective accountability.”
Speaking for the U.S. bishops’ conference were Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City, chair of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; and Bishop Shelton J. Fabre of Houma-Thibodaux, chair of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee Against Racism. Sister Donna Markham, O.P., president and CEO of Catholic Charities, USA, joined the bishops’ statement.
The rule dates back to 2015, and was enacted under the Obama administration. It aimed to encourage local communities to address deeply ingrained patterns of housing segregation that shape how Americans shop, go to school and access health care, ABC News reports. It made federal money to local communities contingent on proactive plans to reduce inequality and to provide fair housing in its rules and its decisions on granting permits.
Critics said the rule was confusing, and said it was difficult to use the computer tool to submit reports and measure progress. The Trump administration suspended the rule soon after taking office.
U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson on July 23 said the previous rule was “unworkable and ultimately a waste of time for localities to comply with” and “too often resulting in funds being steered away from communities that need them most.”
He said the Trump administration programs like opportunity zones drive “billions of dollars of capital into under-served communities where affordable housing exists, but opportunity does not.”
“Programs like this shift the burden away from communities so they are not forced to comply with complicated regulations that require hundreds of pages of reporting and instead allow communities to focus more of their time working with Opportunity Zone partners to revitalize their communities so upward mobility, improved housing, and home ownership is within reach for more people,” said Carson. “Washington has no business dictating what is best to meet your local community’s unique needs.”
On Twitter, Carson characterized the Obama-era rule as “a ruse for social engineering under the guise of desegregation” that turned Housing and Urban development “into a national zoning board.”
Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Housing Coalition, rejected that claim.
“The Fair Housing Act sought to undo decades of social engineering via racist housing policies that created segregated communities,” she said, according to ABC News.
President Trump weighed in on the rule, framing affordable housing as a threat to suburban safety and housing values.
I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low income housing built in your neighborhood…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2020
“I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low income housing built in your neighborhood,” the president said on Twitter July 29.
“Your housing prices will go up based on the market, and crime will go down,” he said, noting the rescinding of the Obama-era rule. “Enjoy!” he added.
Trump has previously claimed the housing policies of his political rivals will affect suburban safety. In July 16 remarks on the South Lawn of the White House, Trump accused Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden of wanting to “abolish” the suburbs and to eliminate single-family zoning, “bringing who knows into your suburbs, so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go down.”
The change comes amid significant difficulty for the United States in the wake of the new coronavirus epidemic.
Peaceful protests followed widespread viewing of video of the May 25 death of George Floyd, a black man, while being detained by Minneapolis police. In many major U.S. cities, these protests were also accompanied by riots and civil unrest that could be the costliest in U.S. history. They caused hundreds of millions of damage and multiple deaths in Minneapolis alone.
Concerns about police brutality have prompted legislation billed as police reform in several states, as well as calls to defund the police. There are also reports of demoralization among police forces, failure to intervene in crime, and efforts of officers to seek early retirement.
In March, the U.S. bishops and Catholic Charities USA filed joint comments asking HUD to withdraw the proposed new rule on the grounds that it fails to address barriers to fair housing, reduces community engagement, weakens the definition of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and weakens the role of public housing authorities.
“The responsibility to ensure fair housing choice is more robust than simply guarding against housing discrimination. The previous definition of AFFH was more holistic and included important elements such as overcoming patterns of segregation and fostering inclusive communities,” their March statement said.
The proposed rule, they said, wrongly reduced the definition of fair housing to ensuring that individuals and families have “the opportunity and options to live where they choose, within their means, without unlawful discrimination related to race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, of disability.”
On Wednesday the bishops and Catholic Charities USA cited the U.S. bishops’ 1975 statement “The Right to a Decent Home,” which said “an absence of racial discrimination is no longer enough. We must insist upon effective programs to remedy past injustice.”
“Let us renew this call to action to ensure all people have access to safe, decent, and affordable housing,” they added.
[…]
Honor to this President for standing up for Palestinian rights and for warning our nation against the inordinate influence of Israel.
May God grant salvation to President Jimmy Carter.
Yes, let’s pray for his soul. But let’s not forget that Carter—in addition to being pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage”, and slanderous towards pro-lifers—praised Castro and Cuba, China, Tito (“a man who believes in human rights”), Kim Il Sung, Yasser Arafat, and the PLO, Mengistu, Cédras, Assad, and Hamas. Jimmy was most inept (whereas Joe is mostly corrupt), but he was also a sanctimonious embarrassment far more often than his hagiographers (that is, the legacy media) will ever admit. For more, see my July 2009 post at Insight Scoop.
Upon Carter’s election, the astute and long-time Singapore President Lee Qwan Yew wrote (of world leaders) in his own autobiography, “we knew we would just have to put up with him for four years.”
And, on the domestic scene, we recall that it was President Carter who gave us the cabinet-level position U.S. Department of Education, surely as a reward to the teachers’ unions that helped him get elected (formed on May 4, 1980, as a result of the Department of Education Organization Act–Public Law 96-88–of October 1979; President Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law.) The gift that keeps on giving.
Educationally speaking, Shakespeare gives us a clue: “The fault is not in our ‘stars,’ but in ourselves” (“Julius Caesar”). That is, the fault is not in those who are elected but in those who elect them. The corporate Peter Principle transferred to the gummint.
Yes, the establishment of the Department of Education was foolish. Yet, who kept it going, despite, as I recall, promises to the contrary? Oh, yeah, his successor, that “great conservative” Ronald Reagan.
Bravo! Sick to death of the hagiographies popping up everywhere.
Not that Pres. Carter endorsed this policy, but something to keep in mind from the late, great Huey Long:
“I don’t know much about Hitler. Except that last thing, about the Jews. There has never been a country that put its heel down on the Jews that ever lived afterwards.”
— Huey Long
For all his faults, Huey had some wise insights. May he & Jimmy Carter rest in peace.
Palestine must earn nationhood. Terrorism must never be rewarded. For over three quarters of a century, the only thing that Palestinians have excelled in is their ability to inflict incalculable suffering on a global scale, not only on others, but also on themselves.
It will only be by a direct intervention from God Himself that the hearts and minds of radical Islam will be converted.
It is for this we must pray.
Aside from rationalizing numerous acts of Islamic terrorism, possibly to downplay and make his years of cowardice not seem so bad while president, the post-president, “great humanitarian,” Carter met with leaders of the terrorist group Hamas. He embraced Nasser al-Shaer, the man who ran the Palestinian education system, brainwashing children into believing Jews are the descendants of pigs and dogs. He laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, the most notorious terrorist thug of the 20th century.
Oh I forgot. Francis seems to indicate the Islamic world can’t do much that is morally wrong. He once reminded us that beheading children was the equivalent of domestic abuse, which he assumed was done by Catholic men since he read it in an Italian newspaper.
Freemasons defend the reputation of fellow members. Not suggesting that is what Bergoglio is doing at all, what so ever.
Thanks for your counter-witness, Carl. I confess my (naive) views of Carter have hitherto been based on the so-called mainstream media.
If Carter was mainly inept, what does that make Francis with his (supposed) assessment of him?
I volunteered in Jimmy Carter’s campaign & he was the first president I ever voted for . (And the last Democrat.) He really was a decent & faithful man in many ways but a very incompetent president.
In the beginning we believed he was a solid Christian believer but over time he veered off in some strange directions. God rest his soul.
Good question. I think there are a few factors involved. First, Pope Francis had to say something nice; it would be uncharitable to do otherwise. Secondly, Francis (I’m guessing) knows very little about Carter’s faith, life, policies, etc. Some of that is to be expected, as the Pope isn’t supposed to be an expert on all previous and current world leaders. But, thirdly, his remarks (praising “the deep faith” of Carter) just follow the standard, mainstream line, which is par for this pope and his inner circle. Fourth, I think that Francis is so keen on politics and political gestures that he probably believes Carter was a good president of deep faith. After all, that’s what the media legacy is trying to feed us here, even though the record says otherwise. Fifth, I think both men, in real ways, are 1970s liberals who have “evolved” on certain stances. Carter (as noted already) ended up embracing a hazy form of liberal Protestantism—or, better, of Protestantized liberalism—and jettisoned core moral beliefs, which in turn meant dismissing any sort of traditional, biblical Christian anthropology.
The bottom line, for me, is that Carter was mostly a disaster as POTUS and while he did some good things afterwards, he was a pro-tyrannical, pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage”, post-1970s liberal whose Christianity was thin at best.
Carter’s was a failed presidency and American voters rejected him and his policies. I find it amusing and laughable how the leftists (inclusing Bergoglio) are tripping over themselves to canonize this man. Some of us are not fooled by the posturing. The guy was book smart but had the leadership skills of an idiot.
Carter was not a good President. I voted against him twice. He let the Iranian Shiite fanatics push him around, that said, he did become a decent ex President with the Habitat for Humanity business. I recall seeing a picture of him years ago, after he left the White House, wearing a tool belt and hammering nails at a construction site. I thought that was nice that he found some task that he can accomplish.
🤭
Agreed on his presidency. It was, overall, a train wreck. Carter was a nice guy, and that meant that he did some nice and good things. But “nice” isn’t the same as principled or strong, and Carter (in my estimation) was neither of those.
Jimmy Carter’s single greatest accomplishment was in giving the United States of America eight years of Reagan.
👍
I took your recommendation, Carl, and read your 2009 article. I believe I am now sufficiently inocculated against the current media and papal hagiography.
I do think Habitat for Humanity does good work.
Respectful farewell to Jimmy Carter. RIP.