A new housing rule from the Obama administration seeks to address housing discrimination among American neighborhoods by desegregating them. In a op-ed piece in the Washington Times, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson discusses how busing failed to address the lack of a racial utopia in America, but the Obama administration has recently implemented a new HUD rule that will "desegregate" housing.
Earlier this month, HUD released its final rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The rule was created to “desegregate” housing by withholding funds from communities that fail to demonstrate their projects “affirmatively further” fair housing.
“As a former mayor, I know firsthand that strong communities are vital to the well-being and prosperity of families,” said HUD Secretary Julián Castro. “Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child’s future. This important step will give local leaders the tools they need to provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity.”
Carson adds that the Fair Housing Act and other laws have contributed the reduction of explicit discrimination in housing, but significant disparities in housing availability and quality persist.
"The new rule would not only condition the grant of HUD funds to municipalities on building affordable housing as is the case today, but would require that such affordable housing be built primarily in wealthier neighborhoods with few current minority residents and that the new housing be aggressively marketed to minorities," Carson noted.
At the end of June, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of “disparate impact” claims can legally be brought about under the Fair Housing Act. While the Court ruled that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, that ruling came with a caveat.
"So the Court holds that there is a disparate impact claim under the FHA as a matter of statutory interpretation, but the Court cautions that remedial orders in disparate impact cases that impose racial targets or quotas could be unconstitutional," Attorney Kevin Russell said on the SCOTUS blog. ". . .The Court emphasizes, however, that disparate impact liability should be imposed cautiously. To avoid constitutional problems, statistical disparity is not enough."
Oftentimes, these forced racial equality attempts by the government create larger issues instead of solving them, Carson says.
"These government-engineered attempts to legislate racial equality create consequences that often make matters worse," Carson concluded. "There are reasonable ways to use housing policy to enhance the opportunities available to lower-income citizens, but based on the history of failed socialist experiments in this country, entrusting the government to get it right can prove downright dangerous."