As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Report: Obama Program Would Allow Cities to Annex Suburbs

President Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation is part of a long-term effort by the Left to co-opt the suburbs into the cities and remove the perceived unfair advantages maintained by surburbanites over urban residents, according to an article in the National Review.

The writer, Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, argues that the administration has been influenced by from the book “Cities Without Suburbs,” written by David Rusk. From the piece:

Rusk, who works closely with Obama’s Alinskyite mentors and now advises the Obama administration, initially called on cities to annex their surrounding suburbs. When it became clear that outright annexation was a political non-starter, Rusk and his followers settled on a series of measures designed to achieve de facto annexation over time.

Kurtz says the rule effectively erases the line between city and suburb by forcing suburbs to import low-income residents into their areas and create the infrastructure to support them.

In significant measure, the rule amounts to a de facto regional annexation of America’s suburbs. To see why, let’s have a look at the rule. AFFH obligates any local jurisdiction that receives HUD funding to conduct a detailed analysis of its housing occupancy by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, and class (among other categories). Grantees must identify factors (such as zoning laws, public-housing admissions criteria, and “lack of regional collaboration”) that account for any imbalance in living patterns. Localities must also list “community assets” (such as quality schools, transportation hubs, parks, and jobs) and explain any disparities in access to such assets by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, class, and more. Localities must then develop a plan to remedy these imbalances, subject to approval by HUD . . .

It’s not enough for, say, Philadelphia’s “Mainline” Montgomery County suburbs to analyze their own populations by race, ethnicity, and class to determine whether there are any imbalances in where groups live, or in access to schools, parks, transportation, and jobs. Those suburbs are also obligated to compare their own housing situations to the Greater Philadelphia region as a whole.

So if some Montgomery County’s suburbs are predominantly upper-middle-class, white, and zoned for single-family housing, while the Philadelphia region as a whole is dotted with concentrations of less-well-off African Americans, Hispanics, or Asians, those suburbs could be obligated to nullify their zoning ordinances and build high-density, low-income housing at their own expense. At that point, those suburbs would have to direct advertising to potential minority occupants in the Greater Philadelphia region. Essentially, this is what HUD has imposed on Westchester County, New York, the most famous dry-run for AFFH . . .

And to make sure the new high-density housing developments are close to “community assets” such as schools, transportation, parks, and jobs, bedroom suburbs will be forced to develop mini-downtowns. In effect, they will become more like the cities their residents chose to leave in the first place.

Not only can HUD withhold funds from localities that don’t comply, but it and private groups can initiate “disparate impact” lawsuits that would treat any demographic imbalance as de facto discrimination.

Ultimately, as Kurtz indicates, this is apiece with Obama’s promise in 2008 to “spread the wealth around.” Only this time, instead of taxing the middle class and the wealthy and giving to the poor, he is moving the poor in with the middle and upper class and forcing them to pay the rent.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

37 Responses to Report: Obama Program Would Allow Cities to Annex Suburbs

    • Analyses etc. Just for show. Obama Administration acts via diktat.

      End result will be the same. Trashed neighborhoods, schools etc. You can move people in but you cannot force the people who have been abused to like or accept it. Those that can will move on.

      • Exactly. That’s Obama’s plan, I would venture to say. More chaos. More groups fighting with each other. More name calling. More marches. More Al Sharptons. More Obama speeches about how awful we all are to resist his commands. More loss of liberty.

        More Cloward and Piven.

  1. Will anyone be moving next door to him? This is insane. He uses our money to live way above a great deal of American tax payers dime. The traveling the fying, it goes on and on.
    Than the hardworking people who chose to do without themselves to move to a crime free, or an open space community will now have to pay for some one else. It is not stopping. He wants all of us to live like a third world country, and or like a communist country. Everyone do it my way or the highway, and each of you will answer to me, or else. You will all be the same, in everyway.
    What about the people who have worked hard to achieve, all kinds of people? LIKE HIM?

  2. I’m feeling the pain of disparate impact. I live outside the White House grounds, although my money pays for it.

    I don’t have a private swimming pool, bowling alley, basketball court, gym, armed guards, limo service, full time P.R. team or my own private jet.

    Where do I file that lawsuit so I can get my equal share?

  3. Keith: Thanks for the perfect example, since I do indeed, live in Montgomery County.

    “If the mountain won’t come to Mohammad, then Mohammed must go to the Montgomery County.”

  4. Social disaster, courtesy of the insane policies of the left is all this will be.
    Their plan is obviously to empty out the now solid Dem cities into what they suppose are Repub strongholds with promises of ..well.,,what? the opportunity to live among working or White families? Blacks hate and distrust Whites everywhere as we hear over and over.
    There’s no point in forcing welfare recipients into a middle class neighborhood where none of the familiar inner-city delights can be found or enjoyed. Curfews are strict for children under 18, there are no bodegas or fast food stores within eyesight, no liquor stores, suburban corners would be slim pickin’s for drug dealers and schools have standards, dress codes that are all enforced.
    It won’t work, it will be a disaster and a tragedy. IMO, of course.

  5. There is nothing good about this idea. Yes, nice neighborhoods will become slums, school suspensions will still have more ‘minority’ students, as they didn’t give a damn about the inner city school rules either. Then nice hard working families will have their homes burgled since the takers will be around all day while the nice people are at work. Then the riots for gimmee will start & the nice neighborhood will be burnt to the ground just like the slums these moochers came from.

    • He’s just an agitator, He’s such a coward that he wouldn’t even go to pay respects to the 5 marines, or pay respect to the young woman’s family after she was shot by his beloved illegal immigrant. Never says a word about the Ambassador and the other men murdered in Benghazi. We know why he won’t visit the families of these people, he’s a coward plain and simple and guilty as sin.

  6. A thought: the people who postulate and formulate these grand ideas are primarily city dwellers, IMO. They don’t leave the beltway except for a yearly vacation and a holiday foray to some other city.
    Rural America? They have no idea that most businesses close up tight on Sunday so the Christians can attend church and enjoy a Sabbath day of rest. They have probably never heard of “blue laws.”
    American life still remains the same in these places – and some don’t allow the sale of alcohol within their counties – not ever!
    People tend to be close – and don’t tolerate rowdy outsiders. They know what they believe and they fully intend to stand for those beliefs.
    And their advice to outsiders is “If you don’t like it here – leave!” Accept the local culture or not…they won’t change.
    They work hard and they play pretty hard too. They teach their children manners and respectfulness towards their elders. They readily help the poor and the orphans and widows and see to one another’s needs all the time.
    And when 5 innocent Americans are murdered by a Muslim extremist, the community as a whole lowers their flags to half mast.
    If you want to be a part of these communities you can – but be prepared to prove who you are and what you stand for consistently. I assure you – you will be put to the test.
    And if found wanting…you will be very lonely.
    The government can hold communities hostage by withholding aid, I guess. But it can never, ever force people to like each other. Not ever.
    Let them annex suburbs. Those that are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it. This type of progressive thinking has been tried for years and has failed miserably. I feel sorry for those that will relocate to the promised land only to find out that the land is full of the same empty promises.

    • Excellent article! We need lots more of these.

      Two money quotes from the article…

      “…..he was in the presence of a man (Obama) with certain gifts: the ability to look like a nice guy and yet who had no reluctance to mow people down, even former friends and mentors, when he needed to do so to get ahead.”

      And..

      “…..and Jones knew a fellow master manipulator of power (Obama) when he saw one.”

  7. I read this article earlier today regarding this subject:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/huds-disparate-impact-war-on-suburban-america/article/2568478?

    HUD’s ‘disparate impact’ war on suburban America
    By Michael Barone • 7/20/15 12:01 AM

    Disparate impact — it’s a legal doctrine that may be coming soon to your suburb (if you’re part of the national majority living in suburbs).

    Bringing it there will be the Obama Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program. It has been given a green light to impose the rule from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project.

    The decision purported to interpret the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as authorizing lawsuits if municipal policies have a “disparate impact” as measured by the racial percentages of those affected. This despite the fact that the words of the Fair Housing Act prohibit only intentional racial discrimination, with no mention of policies that might incidentally appear to have a discriminatory effect.

    (snip)

    • It will all lead to no good end, for sure. Social engineering from government goons. Well, that’s never failed before. Except every single time it has been tried.

  8. And to top off the day! Approval of Obama/Kerry/Jarrett Foreign Policy moves to an international body.

    In your face America.

  9. The Libs will be the first ones to scream if their Messiah sends the ghetto to our ‘blue zone’ community. bMy heart goes out to all of those in ‘red zones’!

  10. This is another piece of news that is not making on the program. I have watched the news for a hour or so this morning. No mention of this issue of cramming our suburbs. I did however see a woman do a cartwheel 3 times on the news this morning.
    The news channels have to start providing important more news, not entertainment.

  11. […] Report: Obama plan would let cities annex suburbs . . . President Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation is part of a long-term effort by the Left to co-opt the suburbs into the cities and remove the perceived unfair advantages maintained by surburbanites over urban residents, according to an article in the National Review. White House Dossier […]