SCOTUS rules that low income housing must be placed in suburbia

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 10:02 PM GMT
    The Supreme Court made it illegal for private businesses to asses risk when building low income housing. According to the court, the law's "unintentional discrimination" was unconstitutional in that it disproportionately put low income housing in areas that had high concentrations of poor minorities.

    Washington PostAs overt racial discrimination has receded from the housing market, civil rights lawyers and housing advocates have argued that "disparate impact" claims are vital to dismantling policies and practices that sound like they have little to do with race at all, such as zoning laws that bar multi-family apartment construction in wealthier white suburbs.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-a-key-tool-fighting-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/

    On one hand this decision sucks because it will make our beautiful suburbs shittier, on the other it's great because all the suburban liberals will get to experience the diversity they love first hand.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Jun 27, 2015 12:06 AM GMT
    Sorry but I strongly disagree with the OP on this one. It is high time that the suburbs took in a significant number of the poor. The suburbs had no legitimate right making themselves too expensive for the poor and working class in the first place. This court decision was forty years overdue. It is morally wrong to burden just the central cities and rural areas with all the poor while suburbia is undeservedly wealthy and living the high life. Suburbs also siphon business and industry from the cities which should have never been encouraged. I also don't think that states like New York should prohibit annexation of suburbs. I firmly believe in metropolitan government like both Indianapolis and Jacksonville. Metropolitan government should be the established norm throughout the U.S. It is time to abolish all these separate jurisdictions because all urban and all suburban residents are in it together like it or lump it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2015 10:12 AM GMT
    Forty years overdue....Ironically that is the year - 1975 - that the always progressive New Jersey Supreme Court took that exact stance in the famous Mt. Laurel ruling. Hell, it even has its own Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_doctrine
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Jun 27, 2015 1:07 PM GMT
    NJDewd saidForty years overdue....Ironically that is the year - 1975 - that the always progressive New Jersey Supreme Court took that exact stance in the famous Mt. Laurel ruling. Hell, it even has its own Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_doctrine
    I am very familiar with the Mount Laurel decision. That was a state level high court that decided that in 1975. It is too bad that high courts in the 49 other states didn't follow suit at that time. Probably our urban ills wouldn't have been as severe as they were during the 80s and 90s if the suburbs were compelled to face their lawful obligation to welcome and house the poor. Fuck property values and equity, that is just a beautiful excuse for suburban cold heartedness and selfishness along with bigotry.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Jun 28, 2015 2:15 PM GMT
    pazkilimanjaro saidit's well documented that the creation and maintenance of the suburbs has to do with some bigoted shit that includes racism which the government allowed and sanctioned so good. if you wanna be mad with somebody, be mad at the government for creating this shit.
    The US government along with the real estate business, and the banking and financial services industry. Also the WW2 and Silent Generations being brainwashed into abandoning perfectly good, stable older neighborhoods for the poorly designed and built, cookie cutter houses in the suburbs. The older segment of the Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1955 are also largely to blame for this preference for suburban living which is largely unsustainable and highly wasteful. This group worsened the problems by abandoning the older more dense suburbs for the even more sprawled out more car centric outer ring suburbs which also helped give rise to the inefficient, isolated, suburban office park. Meanwhile, there is good news on the near horizon as increasingly large numbers of people born in 1956 and after are rejecting the suburban dream, the enclosed shopping mall, the limited access superhighway, and fun fun fun until daddy takes the T-bird away. Many rural communities located next to the metropolitan fringe are becoming deeply hostile to suburban developers and enacting all types of land use ordinances that will protect farmland, open space, and tiny hamlets from encroaching hideous sprawl. Who can blame themicon_question.gif