Trump tries to win over ‘Suburban Housewives’ with repeal of anti-segregation housing rule

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nepperhan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nepperhan

Guest
" President Trump moved Thursday to repeal a fair housing rule that he claimed would lead to “destruction” of the country’s suburbs, continuing an aggressive push that coincides with his campaign’s attempt to paint Democrats as angry mobs on the brink of upturning peaceful, mostly white neighborhoods.

Trump had telegraphed the Housing and Urban Development Department’s move against the Obama-administration rule in recent tweets and comments that made thinly veiled appeals to a key electoral constituency that has drifted away from him over the past four years: suburban white voters.

Trailing Democrat Joe Biden, the presumptive presidential nominee, in the polls just over 100 days before the election, Trump has shed much of the subtlety behind his pitch to skeptical voters. Increasingly, he is portraying himself as the only barrier between them and chaos.

“The Suburban Housewives of America must read this article,” Trump wrote Thursday on Twitter, linking to a New York Post op-ed by former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey that argued that Biden would ruin the country’s bedroom communities.

“Biden will destroy your neighborhood and your American Dream. I will preserve it, and make it even better!” Trump said in his tweet.

Political strategists say the overt appeals to racial fear and grievance are politically precarious at a time when much of the country is trying to reckon with issues such as systemic racism and discrimination.

“There seems to be a complete lack of understanding why he’s been getting drubbed in the suburbs,” said Brendan Buck, who was a top aide to Republican officials including Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) when Ryan was House speaker. “Educated suburban voters are not interested in — and are actually repelled by — his fearmongering and these racial dog whistles.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...269980-ccf5-11ea-bc6a-6841b28d9093_story.html

An anti-segregation law will destroy the suburbs? Or, conversely, segregation preserves suburbs? This sounds like code speech shilling to fears of minorities.
 
Last edited:
It’s hard to call it segregation. Many white people live in section 8 housing. Many black and latino Americans live in the suburbs. As I’ve read more black families are leaving inner cities than white people.

I thought this a nice article that discusses this:

“The Democrats Put the Suburbs — and Family Life — on the November Ballot”


…Somehow, Democrats still see the suburbs as racially homogenized, lily-white enclaves — something they haven’t been for a long time. According to demographer Joel Kotkin and urban studies professor Alan Berger, 151 million Americans live in the suburbs and exurbs, compared with only 25 million in urban cores. A majority of African-Americans in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas live in the suburbs. More Hispanics have been moving to the suburbs than whites, and the Asian population in suburban areas is growing nearly twice as fast as that of Asians living in inner-city cores…

…It’s not racist to want to live in a single-family home on a quarter-acre plot; it’s more like wanting to live the American dream. And the increasing racial and ethnic diversity of the suburbs means, Kotkin argues, that the targets of these heavy-handed federal social-engineering efforts are not only whites but also many minorities who have worked hard to get where they are…
 
The reason for the AFFH rule goes beyond racism. It addresses a real problem in housing. There is an acute shortage of affordable housing as developers find more profit in developing high-end housing. Since land around a city is limited, there can be very few opportunities for those of modest means to live anywhere if all of that land is used up in high-end housing.
 
Last edited:
Trump is spot on about AFFH. Anyone living in the suburbs, regardless of race or ethnicity, should know the plans progressives have to radically alter their communities through coercion.
You should know that the area in Westchester that the Post cites was not only the first area in the nation successfully sued by the Department of Justice for segregation of subsidized housing but also previously led the nation in having a court uphold a restrictive covenant in residential deeds which limited residents to white people.

The bigger question here is if Trump was making a not-too-subtle shill to fears of minorities moving to majority white suburbs.
 
The bigger question here is if Trump was making a not-too-subtle shill to fears of minorities moving to majority white suburbs.
That kind of racism is typically from Democrats.
Blacks and other POC who live in the suburbs do not want their property values intentionally destroyed anymore than whites.

This plan is authoritarian strong-armed tactics of the most un-American kind. It lacks a constitutional mandate (not that progressives care about that).
 
That kind of racism is typically from Democrats.
Blacks and other POC who live in the suburbs do not want their property values intentionally destroyed anymore than whites.

This plan is authoritarian strong-armed tactics of the most un-American kind. It lacks a constitutional mandate (not that progressives care about that).
Which does not address the question at all.
 
The reason for the AFFH rule goes beyond racism. It addresses a real problem in housing.
The real housing problem is caused by odious government policies like rent control and government housing projects. As usual, the general government, when it steps outside its constitutional mandate, makes matters worse.

The general government owns thousands of buildings not being used. Start there.
Progressives continue to destroy the cities, ongoing as we watch. Trying to expand that destruction to the suburbs for the sake of social engineering should be rejected by everyone, regardless of race.
 
It addresses why this draconian, authoritarian plan should be rejected.
I think your post was more of a deflection than anything else. ‘Protecting the suburbs’ sounds like Reagan’s old ‘Welfare queen’ speeches.
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The reason for the AFFH rule goes beyond racism. It addresses a real problem in housing.
The real housing problem is caused by odious government policies like rent control and government housing projects.
There is no data to support the assertion that these efforts have reduced the amount of affordable housing.
The general government owns thousands of buildings not being used.
There is no data to support the assertion that there are substantial government buildings that could be turned into affordable housing.
 
I think your post was more of a deflection than anything else. ‘Protecting the suburbs’ sounds like Reagan’s old ‘Welfare queen’ speeches.
Only to progressives that think about race that way ( even misrepresentation of Reagan, which is typical).
Maybe progressives, who have subjected POC to inter generational poverty and hideous government housing, should try to fix they’ve made over 50 years first, before they spend their policies to the suburbs.
 
There is no data to support the assertion that these efforts have reduced the amount of affordable housing.
Then there should be plenty of it. After all, the American taxpayers have spend perhaps trillions on public housing for half a century.
There is no data to support the assertion that there are substantial government buildings that could be turned into affordable housing.
There is no data because their has been no desire to look at the possibility.
 
Last edited:
Then there should be plenty of it. After all, the American taxpayers have spend perhaps trillions on public housing for half a century.
I didn’t say public housing. I said affordable housing. And there is not “plenty of it.”
There is no data to support the assertion that there are substantial government buildings that could be turned into affordable housing.
There is no data because their has been no desire to look at the possibility.
In other words, you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. This didn’t stick. It slid down behind the couch in a sloppy mess.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t say public housing. I said affordable housing. And there is not “plenty of it.”
The market is best equipped for that.
In other words, you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. This didn’t stick. It slid down behind the couch in a sloppy mess.
No. I’m saying that unless the general government looks into all possibilities, they shouldn’t go wreck communities.
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I didn’t say public housing. I said affordable housing. And there is not “plenty of it.”
The market is best equipped for that.
Nice ideological statement with no basis in fact. The free and unregulated market with only the profit margin in mind has every reason to avoid providing affordable housing.
In other words, you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. This didn’t stick. It slid down behind the couch in a sloppy mess.
No. I’m saying that unless the general government looks into all possibilities, they shouldn’t go wreck communities.
Requiring that some of the new construction be devoted to affordable housing is not wrecking communities. That is Trump fear-mongering.
 
The reason for the AFFH rule goes beyond racism. It addresses a real problem in housing. There is an acute shortage of affordable housing as developers find more profit in developing high-end housing.
In Atlanta, there is a project known as “The Beltline” that was supposed to include housing of various price levels. But the developers decided to maximize profit and keep the housing on the high end. The person over the project quit because of lack of success in the goal of providing affordable housing.

I had a friend that bought a house early on in anticipation of her house being close to the beltline. Her 125k purchase could now sell for nearly half a million. But on the flip side of that, unless someone is ready to pay half a million for a house, this housing project that is surrounding atlanta is pretty much out of their budget.
 
Nice ideological statement with no basis in fact. The free and unregulated market with only the profit margin in mind has every reason to avoid providing affordable housing.
The general government has proven it can’t do housing at all.
Requiring that some of the new construction be devoted to affordable housing is not wrecking communities.
Please be specific: where in the constitution is the general government granted power to tell a developer what kind of housing must be built.

Housing becomes affordable when supply is greater than demand. Government regulations, such as rent control and dictates on what kind of housing must be built limits construction of new housing, limiting supply which puts upward pressure on rent.

Get government out of the way, and the market will meet the supply
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Nice ideological statement with no basis in fact. The free and unregulated market with only the profit margin in mind has every reason to avoid providing affordable housing.
The general government has proven it can’t do housing at all.
Government housing is not the subject of this thread. This thread is about private sector housing providing an adequate mix of affordable options along with the high-end ones.
Requiring that some of the new construction be devoted to affordable housing is not wrecking communities.
Please be specific: where in the constitution…
Nope. Not going to go down that rabbit hole. That ship has sailed.
Housing becomes affordable when supply is greater than demand.
Or when government requires that some of the development be reserved for affordable housing.
Government regulations, such as rent control and dictates on what kind of housing must be built limits construction of new housing, limiting supply which puts upward pressure on rent.
Nonsense. When more land is devoted to affordable housing, there are more units available per square mile, which raises the supply and puts downward pressure on rent.
Get government out of the way, and the market will meet the supply
That’s been tried. It hasn’t worked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top