To: Francois re racism and real estate

by Amazing 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Amazing

  Hi Francois: I was going to reply directly under my first thread, but felt that this needs to be separated from my larger post.

  You said with respect to my refusal to cooperate with aiding people in real estate decisions and assisiting them from a racial perspective, you said:

  Essentially, you are going to force your viewpoint and outlook on people whether they want it or not. How Witness-like! I cannot agree with you in this connection. It's self-righteous in the extreme. Your interference in this isn't going to "help end the racial tension" in this country.

  First and formost, it is not my intention to force anything upon anyone. I think there is a misunderstanding here that I need to clear up. The US federal law requires that I not Steer people to or away from or identify the racial make-up of a neighborhood or community with respect to residential properties under our Fair Housing Laws and the various Civil Rights acts. This is strictly enforced, and the Federal Government under the Dept of HUD will send out sting operators that are allowed under civil procedure to entrap and lie while they pose as buyers in order to test real estate professionals. Therefore,I have NO choice but to comply with the Fair Housing laws, lest I lose my license, and go to jail.

  Second, I am allowed and DO tell people that they can drive around and decide what areas they want to live in and tell me, but NOT state their "specific reasons" for their choice. It is just that I am NOT going to participate in telling someone where the 'black' neighborhood is, or where the 'white' neighborhood is. I think that should be their private choice without my assistance. Nothing is forced upon them. I am just not going to participoate in or aid and abbet in any racial profiling.

  However, in commerical, where I do most of my business, I do assist with demographic analysis for a retailer looking to locate in a specific market, but not as an act of racism.

  You continued,
  

  It may very well help perpetuate it, but end it? I don't think so. Having someone else's opinions forced down your throat rarely changes any one's mind. And frankly, after your witness experience, I'm surprised you take this position.

  My above comments mostly dealt with this, but I can say that I do not force an opinion on anyone. If an African American couple ask me where the 'white' areas are because that is where they want to live, I do not say, 'look people, you are wrong, I am right, and you can't ask that, and I am not going to help you.' That is not what takes place. What I do say as required by law is, "I am not permitted to racially profile communities for clients. As consumers, however, you can simply state the specific town, neighborhood, etc. And I will show you properties in those areas, or you may state what areas I am not to conduct searches, and not give me your private reasons, and I will avoid those areas."

  It is to an extent a word game, but an important one required by law. It permits people freedom to act as they wish without specifically or directly involving racial profiling. So, in a way they can make racial choices, but just not get my assistance in doing so.

  I hope this clears up the issue and helps you realize that I am not in any way forcing anything upon anyone. It just so happens, however, that I support our Fair Housing laws and find that compliance is easy because I am not a racist. Thanks again for bringing this issue out in the open. - Amazing
• 

  LDH

  Amazing,

  Thanks for clarifying this for Francois. I think he's getting his information from Tru Grit magazine or something. ( No offense Francoise.)

  I was going to if you didn't.

  Yes, it is a word game, but one that has to be played. The law HAD to be passed because too many white realtors weren't showing their minority clients ALL of the available properties. This is the same things that insurance companies do, I believe it's called RED-LINING an area that they refuse to write for coverage if it's too 'black'.

  Hell yes there oughta be a law.
• 

  Amazing

  Hi LDH: Thanks for expanding this. You said:

  This is the same things that insurance companies do, I believe it's called RED-LINING an area that they refuse to write for coverage if it's too 'black'.

  Red Lining started with the Banking industry. They literally took a map of a city and drew a red line areound certain areas and would not lend money in those locations. The basis for the decision was more about poor areas, because it raised the risk of investment, and banks have to be careful about risking investor-depositor money lest they get in trouble for being reckless. In principle they had a legitimate argument.

  The problem on the other side of this redline issue is that many poor areas also happen to be where a high concentration of African Americans lived. And if they could not get investment capital into an area it would remain poor and get poorer. So the Federal government had to bring this to an end.

  Next, the Real Estate industry was brought into focus. It was not so much that Realtors would willfully practice discrimination, although some did, but that the Anglo-American consumer did not want to live in high crime, poor areas, and areas dominated racially by African Americans. So the Realtor would simply obey the client and assist in identifying properties along racial lines. Some Realtors, in the minority, would also steer people to of from an area based on race. Some few also at times practiced block-busting, which is where you get a listing in an area and then tell the neighborhood that the Purple people are moving in, and they had better sell ... and this would frighten white residence into selling to get away from perceived problems. All of this was outlawed, and the Feds keep a very close watch on it. But the incidence of this happening today is almost none.

  I have misgivings about HUD sting operators spying on fellow Americans to enforce civil laws. It reminds me of what we use to hear about communist countries, but the intent is still good.

  The Insurance industry, specifically the property damage and liability carriers are also required to comply with fair housing laws, but they were never the target of this issue to the extent that banking and real estate professionals were. - Amazing
• 

  Francois

  Thanks for clearing that up. I should have figgered that the feds were involved in some way.

  You understand my problem with all this is the element of force, including what you characterized as, essentially, lying and deceit on the part of federal inspectors who engage in entrapment and such in an effort to achieve their goals. This "end justifies the means" approach in my opinion is immoral and unethical.

  Any government that essays a noble end via ignoble techniques in my opinion is dangerous. Communism, for instance, does this exact thing, doesn't it? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," was the underlying creed of the Soviet Union for 70 years, and it ushered in one of the most repressive, murderous, evil empires the world has ever known.

  And before I am labeled as something other, I purchased my home in Decatur, GA in an area characterized as the "frontier" between white and black from a black guy when I got there, and sold it to same when I left. It's not the integration I object to, it's the approach.

  And I hope that clears up my end of this conversation.

  francois

  My $0.02
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Francois: Thanks for the feedback. You noted some additional points that I will address:

  You understand my problem with all this is the element of force, including what you characterized as, essentially, lying and deceit on the part of federal inspectors who engage in entrapment and such in an effort to achieve their goals. This "end justifies the means" approach in my opinion is immoral and unethical.

  The force is strictly from the government. I do not force clients. I do agree with you that the USA HUD method of enforcement is wrong. It is about the only way they can catch and prove that some few are guilty. But in so doing, they violate the Constitution. Unfortunately, the politicians and legal-beagles have managed to make a distinction between civil and criminal code to such an extent that they are now, in many cases, enforcing criminal code via fiat methods in the name of civil procedure. using civil procedure they argue that Constitutional protections do not exist, and therefore, the burden of proof is on the accused. Many Americans are not really aware of this bastardization of our Constitution. So, on this point, I stand with you 100%.

  Any government that essays a noble end via ignoble techniques in my opinion is dangerous. Communism, for instance, does this exact thing, doesn't it? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," was the underlying creed of the Soviet Union for 70 years, and it ushered in one of the most repressive, murderous, evil empires the world has ever known.

  That underlying creed is now the montra of the Democratic Party, for they love Big Organized Government to take care of the people, for they own our money, and 'we are their children.' They words come from none other than Hillary Clinton. I loath big nanny government, but many poeple want that socialism, and they are willing to sacrifice freedom and personal responsibility, becoming eternal victims, and most importantly, they are willing to pay for big mommy government through higher and higher taxes.

  And before I am labeled as something other, I purchased my home in Decatur, GA in an area characterized as the "frontier" between white and black from a black guy when I got there, and sold it to same when I left. It's not the integration I object to, it's the approach.

  When I owned rental property, I rented to blacks and whites in a mostly white neighborhood, and did not even think about discrimination. That was my choice as it should be.

  Thanks again for your comments and entertaining this discussion.

  Amazing

  francois

  My $0.02