Obama's Social Engineering Of Housing Diversity Is Doomed To Fail

Apparently, Barack Obama has advised his Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to withhold low-income housing grants unless it can be demonstrated that they  would be used to build islands of affordable housing for low-income families in upscale neighborhoods.  Thus, low income families would be able to escape their typically beaten-down neighborhoods with poor schools, poor shopping, poor transportation, and crime.

From a purely economic standpoint, this makes no sense.

Upscale neighborhoods have upscale prices and little, if any, low-cost stores such as  Wal-Mart that low-income families need to survive.  Even with food stamps, grocery bills will be too high. Typically a store in an upscale neighborhood carries costlier cuts of meat and higher quality fruits and vegetables that demand higher prices. I also doubt that any local doctors and hospitals will be willing to accept low-income Medicaid patients.  At the same time, working locations may be miles away from what are typically pure residential neighborhoods.  Thus, this idea will fail for economic reasons because the low-income family will have to travel miles to see a doctor, buy food and clothing, and get to work.  Also, there are far fewer municipal buses that operate in suburbs as opposed to the urban areas that these families left.

However, the biggest problem with Obama's plan will probably be the social and psychological impact of trying to mix the "have nots" with the "haves". Especially, when it comes to schooling.  Low-income students may find it harder to compete for good grades because of the higher standards of the upper scale schools vs the inner city schools.  There, will also be obvious class disparities on the basis of how people dress, talk, or in the possessions they have.  For this reason, poorer students might be shunned by the greater population, creating all kinds of unhealthy feelings.

Like everything that President Obama sanctions, it's his way or else.  Before pushing this concept onto society, it should be tested on a small scale to see if it is even viable.  Otherwise, billions will be spent on another failed social experiment like the original housing projects that now have been mostly torn down or lay in ruin.

Reference:  Obama making bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods: http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-neighborhoods







  

Court: Obama Loses Flat-Roofed Housing Discrimination Claim

Back in June, I wrote a blog  entitled: 'Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before'.  In it, I pointed out that, in previous Administrations, the average win rate in the courts was about 70%.  Nearly the opposite has happened under President Obama, with his Administration losing two-thirds of the cases that go to court.

The reason for this is simple.  Obama and his ideologically driven people seem to think they can take existing laws and interpret them in ways that were never intended by Congress.  In other words, create new legislation through reinterpretation; thus, bypassing Congress completely.

Obama's latest loss had to do with his Housing and Urban Development's reinterpretation of the federal Fair Housing Act.  They argued that Allstate Insurance, by refusing to insure flat-roofed houses, was practicing discrimination because they were disproportionately not insuring minorities since a higher percentage of those homes were owned by minorities.

First of all, the intent of the the Fair Housing Act was to prevent intentional and widespread discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or religion when someone was either buying  or trying to finance a home.  But, Allstate's supposed discrimination was not intentional.  It was a business decision based on the fact that flat-roofed homes carry an inherently high insurance risk.  Flat roofs leak more frequently than other types.  As a result, they have higher incidents of water damage, mildew and mold.  Often, the damage is inside walls resulting in the entire wall being replaced.  They may also sag and, as a consequence, have a high rate of collapse after extremely heavy rain and snow fall.  Surprisingly, they also have a higher burglary risk. As a result, they have low market values because most people don't want to deal with all the problems, and the high cost of insuring and/or  maintaining a flat roof.

So, the unreasonableness of this racial bias claim was why a U.S. District Judge had no other choice to side with Allstate against Obama.  This is, as noted before, very typical. For example, the Obama Administration is now trying to expand the scope of the Clean Water Act in order to control wells, ponds and marshes; even on private lands.  But, the intention of the Clean Water Act was to only have federal environmental say over navigable waters.  Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.  So, I am quite sure that this, too, will wind up in our courts with another smack down by Obama's out-of-control regulations.

References:

Obama Is Losing In The Courts Like Never Before: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/06/obama-is-losing-in-courts-like-never.html

Court rejects Obama housing bias rule as 'wishful thinking': http://news.yahoo.com/u-court-rejects-obama-housing-bias-rule-wishful-215306404.html

If your house has a flat roof, or even if some of its roof is flat, it can complicate insurance arrangements: http://www.gocompare.com/home-insurance/flat-roof-home-insurance/

Clean Water Act Expansion Draws Ire From GOP As White House Prepares To Regulate Waterways: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/clean-water-act-expansion_n_5088723.html