Trump Administration Gives Hope to Property Rights Advocates

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

Paul Mirengoff, of PowerLine, notes that Secretary Ben Carson’s Housing and Urban Development department (HUD) is moving in a direction that should please anybody who was concerned about the implications of RhodeMap RI:

Here’s a reminder of why [even Trump critics on the Right should be happy that he beat Hillary Clinton]. Yesterday, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson announced that his agency will “reinterpret” the ultra-instrusive Obama housing rule known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). The rule was designed by the Obama administration to seize federal control over local zoning for the purpose of creating neighborhoods that comply with the left’s race-based vision of where people should live. We discussed it here, among other places.

Secretary Carson didn’t say exactly how he plans to “reinterpret” AFFH. However, he told the Washington Examiner that he doesn’t believe in the “manipulation” associated with the rule or with the burdens it imposes on local communities. As a candidate for president, he called it “a doomed-to-fail attempt to “legislate racial equality.”

Mirengoff is right to subsequently warn that “reinterpreting” a rule is a softer protection than simply canceling it, but a step in the right direction is clearly better than a jump in the wrong one, which a different administration might have brought about.

That point, however, brings us back to an inexhaustible theme that conservatives must wake up reminding ourselves:  Our real work is cultural and in education.  As long as we continue to allow the Left to pervert the minds of younger generations as if they are invading aliens, the assaults on our liberty will return like a plague every decade or so, when the politic mood shifts.



  • Rhett Hardwick

    One might “reconsider” HUD altogether. It began in the 60’s. It extended loans to people in “inner cities”. and to the elderly. It did a lot to recover (gentrify) a lot of cities, Boston is an excellent example. Then there was trouble about them driving blacks out of cities. More likely economic, than race based. So, now HUD will only do business with “non-profits”. That necessitated “consultants”, every former senator seemed to grab a “consultancy”. Many were indicted by the handful, and many convicted. Mass, Sen. Brooke was an “un-indcicted co-conspirator”, now he has a courthouse named after him in Boston.

  • The Misfit

    Funny how social engineering never got a bad name when it was the red lining and the intended segregation in cities like Boston and Providence and Chicago and Detroit. Justin can plead ignorance I am sure to why those cities are so segregated by race. No social engineering there. He just found it that way and assumes it has nothing to do with conservative politics . Libertarians seem to have no memory or a very select one.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      ” intended segregation —. No social engineering there.”
      Doubtless intended segregation, not sure social engineering applies. there is a very interesting book about redlining in Boston, unfortunately i now forget the title,. Basically, blacks began moving to Boston in the 50’s. City government, unable to stop them, decided to contain them. They looked around at the various ethnic groups, Irish,, Italians, Jews, etc, to decide who they could lose. They decided the Jews, who occupied the Roxbury section could go. They organized meetings with the leading banks to restrict mortgages to blacks to the Roxbury section It worked. Most of the HUD money went to Boston proper. Resuscitating the “South End” which had a high block population, as renters. “Bay Village” was resurrected as “Gay Village”.,

    • Rhett Hardwick

      “segregated by race” Much is simply “birds of a feather flock together”. Why else the Italian flavor of Federal Hill and Boston’s North End. Why the Irish in South Boston? Presently, one might ask about the Cambodian flavor of Federal Hill.

Quantcast