To: Saulamanca who wrote (24469 ) 7/24/2020 10:43:11 AM From: Saulamanca Respond to Will the AFFH Stay Dead? Howard Husock tweeted : “At the request of many great Americans who live in the Suburbs, and others, I am studying the AFFH housing regulation that is having a devasting impact on these once thriving Suburban areas . . . Not fair to homeowners. I may END!”New York’s suburban Westchester County , which was deemed discriminatory for lacking an adequate plan for low-income residents to find housing in such affluent enclaves as Chappaqua, home to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Then HUD undersecretary Ronald Sims described the Obama policy as a step toward ensuring that no child’s prospects were defined by zip code.limited and misguided policy . The high costs of land and construction meant that the rule would serve only a small number of households; the policy’s real purpose, it appeared, was to ensure that the wealthy would provide their “fair share” of housing. Nor was AFFH a healthy approach to encouraging upward mobility. By making poverty the criterion to qualify, it ignored how the surest route to socioeconomic progress entails work, saving, and a two-income married household; the idea that “zip code is destiny” is a classic error of cause and effect. The rules governing subsidized housing discouraged upward mobility by tying rent to income, raising rent when income rises. Finally, AFFH’s expansive definition of fair housing—going far beyond the common-sense idea that no one who can afford to buy or rent property should be refused based on race—is a recipe for social tension. Racial comity is far more likely when neighbors share economic and educational backgrounds.Continued
