HUD: The Rich Opportunities Of The Grievance Industry

Fifty-three years ago Martin Luther King, Jr. visualized a day when his children would no longer be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Today with the help of the Obama administration the Department of Housing and Urban Development is working to make sure that day never comes. Less than a year after King’s famous speech Lyndon Johnson’s Administration declared “unconditional war on poverty in America.” Since then the United States has spent over $22 trillion dollars on anti-poverty programs – three times the combined cost of every war the U.S. military has fought since the American Revolution – and yet, today in America there are more than 46 million people living in poverty because these anti-poverty programs are not only failing but are exacerbating the problem. The Left is tangled in the belief that people, especially minorities, are incapable of helping themselves which results in what is essentially a landfill of government programs, departments and mandates. and a constant broadening and re-defining of those already in place. Take the Fair Housing Act, signed into law in 1968 which rightly outlawed the following:

  • Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
  • Discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
  • Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.
  • Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person’s enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.

This past June the U.S. Supreme Court needlessly widened the scope of the Fair Housing Act by determining that local housing agencies and landlords can be found guilty of racial discrimination without ever engaging in discriminatory procedures. Let’s say, hypothetically, that the owner of a housing complex or apartment building requires that applicants have a clean criminal record.

Even though this is required of every applicant regardless of race, a case can now be made that this simple prerequisite has a disproportionate effect on a specific ethnic group and thus promotes residential segregation. To consider the content of one’s character is to risk being liable for racial discrimination in a court of law. Just one of many glaring examples of how the Left promotes an industry of grievance. There is perhaps no greater instrument of this than HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Run by Julian Castro, this is a group of unelected officials behaving as social engineers. They’re peddling a narrative of victimhood over achievement, determining who gets to live in certain neighborhoods based on how they feel that neighborhood should look. It’s a fitting position for Castro, whose mother Rosie helped found the anti-white, socialist Chicano party La Raza Unida. His twin brother, Joaquin was named after an anti-gringo movement poem called, “I am Joaquin.” Jose Angel-Gutierrez, one of the La Raza Unida founders and friend to Castro’s mother, once told an audience in San Antonio “We have to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to worst, we have got to kill him.” This is the ideology that surrounded Castro as a child and his political positions today are reflective of it. He believes that Republicans are racist for wanting to end sanctuary cities and control illegal immigration. He refers to voter-I.D. laws as “voter suppression.”

So it will come as no surprise to learn that the agency he oversees is currently using advanced data to examine the living patterns and racial composition of white neighborhoods in Baltimore County as well as Westchester, New York – one of the wealthiest counties in the United States. Their goal is to both address “residential segregation” and help low-income families “gain access to communities that are rich with opportunity.” Castro’s vision for Baltimore County sees low-income minorities “gaining access” to affluent white neighborhoods with the help of government mandates that require wealthy, or rather “segregated” zip codes to spend local tax dollars and resources to relocate the poor into newly built subsidized housing units. The chosen counties are also required to “proactively market the units to potential tenants who are least likely to apply, including African-American families and families with a member who has a disability.”

This “residential segregation” that HUD is trying to eliminate does not extend to Korean, Chinese, Jewish, Latino, or Black neighborhoods even though they are “rich with opportunity” that uniquely benefits the groups who built them. Come to think of it, Maryland is actually home to five of the top ten wealthiest black communities in America but none of those neighborhoods have been targeted for HUD’s grand experiment of “affirmatively furthering fair housing.”

Wait a minute, aren’t Black, Chinese, Jewish, Korean, and Latino communities residentially segregated? Let’s ignore that – it doesn’t fit the narrative, you see. Take a look at the NAACP’s definition of Section 8 housing today and you’ll see the narrative quite clearly: “Section 8 is meant to encourage economic and racial integration and to enable historic victims of discrimination to live in communities of their own choosing.” The historical reality is that Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 was implemented as a response to the Great Depression. Today, Section 8 is managed by, you guessed it, HUD. Many communities have a waiting list thousands of families long with a waiting period of three to six years.Oftentimes a lottery system is employed, with priority given to the elderly, disabled, and veterans. There is nothing in this legislation about race. 

Let’s say hypothetically that your minority family represents five people out of the 46 million that are living in poverty in the U.S. today. That shouldn’t be difficult – 58% of the 46 million people living in poverty aren’t white. But wait, that means that 42% of all Americans living in poverty are white? Yes, it does but nevermind. Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund tells us that

“Housing discrimination is the unfinished business of civil rights… It goes right to the heart of our divide from one another. It goes right to the heart of whether you believe that African American people’s lives matter, that you respect them, that you believe they can be your neighbors, that you want them to play with your children.”

This is not only false but terribly presumptuous – why would “historic victims of discrimination” want to live with the people that “historically discriminated” against them? And what about those white  families that don’t have access to wealthy neighborhoods?

For the Left it’s always about race, especially when it isn’t. But back to our hypothetical: You’re family has been struggling and living in a poor neighborhood for years. You don’t have a car but that’s manageable because you’re able to take public transportation. Suddenly you are moved into an affluent suburb with the assistance of HUD because, well, how come these other people get to have a huge house in a quiet neighborhood? They say that a world of new opportunity will be open to you but fail to mention that suburban communities are home to the largest and fastest growing poor population in the country and that for the first time in fifty years, job opportunities are increasing in city centers and decreasing in suburban areas. Maybe they haven’t told you that cities have between two and four times as many jobs available within a typical commuting distance as well as effective transportation infrastructures not found in suburban communities.

And what about deciding where to live based on what you can afford?  I have made choices in my life and I live with them. As I approach forty I often find myself wishing that I had made more of an effort in college, or studied law instead of poetry. I would certainly have more options available to me now. But the hard truth is that I don’t. My choices had consequences. When I was eighteen I thought I would never want a house in the country or a 9-5 job. I thought I’d be a city-dwelling, poetry-writing liberal for the rest of my life, joyously suffering through poverty for the sake of my art. Oops. Also, barf.

The route my family takes to get to the grocery store takes us through a neighborhood of million-dollar homes, sprawling lawns, and driveways packed with shiny new cars. Quite a contrast to our apartment complex. Oftentimes I feel a pang of regret as we pass by these homes. Occasionally one of my children will innocently ask if we can have a house like that. I don’t like having to say no, but I have to because it’s true. However I cannot and will not begrudge those who have achieved the kind of success that allows them access to these neighborhoods. When I was a young man I could have worked several jobs to put myself slowly through community college. I could’ve fought my way into a better university. I could have gotten a degree that would lead to a six-figure job. But I didn’t. I didn’t. The people in these houses did. The black families did. The white families did. The Korean families did.  

As long as liberal left-wing organizations like HUD and the NAACP continue to view the problem of poverty in America through purely racial terms, nothing will be accomplished. Five decades and over twenty trillion dollars has managed only to produce a government bureaucracy dependent on and empowered by grievance and victimhood.


4 thoughts on “HUD: The Rich Opportunities Of The Grievance Industry

  1. Great piece. Also part of this effort is using the “data” to identify a person’s race based on his last name. How do the Prigressives get away with such blatant racial profiling? Because no one holds them accountable.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. So what’s the answer? What should be done? AFFH is a response to a court ruling in Texas, in which the City was found guilty of placing public housing in all one area, thereby creating a system of poverty within the area and schools. AFFH requires cities to consciously attempt to spread out public housing. I’m not saying AFFH is the solution, I want to know what your suggestion for fixing the problem is, because pulling the plug and telling everyone to pull themselves up by their boot straps won’t solve it. Don’t get me wrong – I’m as conservative as the day is long – but the reality is that approach works great if the choice to change comes from within, but when it is forced from the outside it won’t improve the poverty problem within our nation – not one bit. It is also important to acknowledge the important role that surroundings and education play in the minds of children. In most cases the adults are a lost cause…but from a psychological perspective, scarcity and poverty only create a dangerous mental health pattern in children, that is difficult to overcome once the child has grown – hence another generation in poverty. I think AFFH acknowledges this by attempting to create an atmosphere in which the children living in poverty at least have a chance a better education. They won’t be getting much opportunity from their parents…a good public school may be their last resort (a very scary thought!) I think it is also important to acknowledge the impact of this is vastly different across the county. In major metro areas (DC, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas) it is easy for you to point at race, but where I live, a small metro in the rural midwest, over 80% of our Section 8 vouchers are for white folks, while only about 60% of our population is white. I think that is what frustrates me so much about my fellow conservatives and this issue – the fail to acknowledge the complexity of it, the depth of it, and the need helping to formulate realistic solutions across the board.

    The irony of it is that the issues you see across the nation are actually from HUD acting as a semi- conservatively. They formulate the broadest regulations possible, because the needs across the country are so diverse that it is impossible to create a system that would serve everyone adequately. This issue comes in with each individual city/state that is receiving HUD funds. Like I said, large metros are making bad choices when it comes to implementing housing practices. What should the solution be? HUD implement more regulation? Really? Should the government have to regulate the cities more? I’m not saying Castro is a great guy – but HUD as a whole does a pretty good job of trying to regulate enough to curb local corruption, and then stay out of everything else. And that’s a fact. I have to work with them (not for them) on a daily basis. HUD shouldn’t have to pull the plug on funding – public housing authorities, cities, and states need to get their act together.

    Sorry to be sooooo long-winded about this – but it is actually exciting for me to be able to have an opportunity to discuss these issues, which I work closely with, especially with a fellow conservative. The are huge issues and the pros and cons are rarely reported on in conservative media.


    • Thank you for that reply! I get long-winded, too & I would much rather have a substantive interaction than not. I’d love to discuss this further – you can reach me via email from this website – send me a line and I’ll get back to you with a response to yr comment. Thanks again – best wishes to you…


  3. The Obama plan to get people out of hopeless inner city neighborhoods is indeed horrid. In many respects it’s nothing more than a vehicle to shift government money to “community organizers” so they can ramp up Democratic get-out-the-vote campaigns.
    BUT, Greg, what is your response to the findings of Raj Chetty and others?
    Here’s what Chetty et al. found when young kids in poor families, living in poverty neighborhoods, moved into ordinary neighborhoods while they were still in grade school: Those kids’ chances to escape poverty (once they became adults) jumped dramatically. Not to Clintonesque wealth, but to hard-working self-supporting lives. Because that’s what they saw in their new neighborhoods; it’s what parents of their new friends did … every day. It’s what they, it seems, decided to do themselves as grownups.
    We certainly don’t blame third graders for where they live. And surely they are worth our efforts to offer them a chance at a better future.
    Can we not take this idea, strip away its pork barrel dollars and cronyism evils, and find it in our hearts to love these kids enough to help them earn their own way to success?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s