Posted on 04/22/2005 10:54:48 PM PDT by freepatriot32
The modest brick house, with its yard full of wilting tulips and rusted old cars, isn't a candidate for the pages of Better Homes and Gardens.
But on a spring day in 2002, it was just what Nealie Pitts had in mind. She approached the owner, Rufus T. Matthews, and asked the price.
According to court documents, Matthews said the house was selling for $83,000 - but that a deed restriction meant only whites were eligible to buy it.
"I was hurt and angry, like he had slapped me in the face," Pitts, who is black, said in an e-mail.
Nearly three years later, the Virginia Office of the Attorney General said it will soon take Matthews to court for the alleged fair housing law violation.
It's a bittersweet victory for fair housing proponents, who wonder how many other people are turned away by racially restrictive deed covenants.
"We very rarely encounter anybody who believes they can be enforced," said Connie Chamberlin, president of Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME). "We are aware they're certainly out there."
In milder forms, covenants can be used to control things like the color homeowners can paint their houses.
But in the Jim Crow South, they were often used to keep neighborhoods white. Racially restrictive covenants were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1948.
"Many people don't even know they're in their deeds," Chamberlin said, adding would-be homebuyers can ask to have the racist language removed. "That can't be used as a reason to stop a sale."
According to court documents, Matthews told Pitts his house in suburban Richmond was "not for colored. We decided we are going to keep this area right here all white."
The next day she contacted HOME, which sent out a black test buyer.
"Precisely the same thing happened," Chamberlin said. "We have it on tape."
On Thursday, Matthews told The Associated Press that he would sell his home only to a white buyer. But he denied the house was for sale, saying a sale sign he had was for items in his yard. "The house has never been for sale," he said.
Matthews is accused of violating the Virginia Fair Housing Law. The same code says officials can attempt an out-of-court settlement in cases where the law has been violated.
At an April 13 meeting, the Virginia Fair Housing Board rejected a settlement offer. Board Chairman David Rubinstein declined to detail why it refused the proposal from the attorney general's office.
But Thomas Wolf, an attorney representing Pitts, said the offer would have required Matthews take two hours of class on fair housing law, at taxpayer expense.
"That is not a serious settlement proposal given the facts of the case," Wolf said. "Were they planning to pass out Happy Meals with little Confederate flags?"
Emily Lucier, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Judith Williams Jagdmann, could not explain how the proposal was formulated, but said settlement is not unheard of in discrimination cases.
Pitts is seeking $100,000 in damages in a separate case against Matthews. Lucier said because Pitts has gotten her own lawyer, the office cannot legally seek monetary damages in the civil matter.
Instead, she said, the office will continue pressing for injunctive relief and education. A court date has not been set
They finally found one idiot biggot to howl about. No One has a problem with hard working people trying to get ahead (except this one seller).How about the degradation of entire communities that goes on every day when they jam "low income" or PROJECT housing into the area where your house (which you've worked so hard for all your life) resides. Not a peep. Just more complaints about a non-problem. People will always want to be with their own kind, same as in the animal kingdom.It's not gonna stop just because some aclu types want it to.
Thanks. I tend to have a soft spot for the underdog.
Here, HUD pays for a house when blacks move into a white neighborhood--3 over $100,000 to the relative of the man who is head of the local HUD funds. The median cost of a home here is about $50,000.
There's a difference in the court enforcing the covenant and the owner respecting the covenant.
I think you might want to say "national origin" here, not nationality. Ownership of land by aliens is something that is quite within the realm of regulation or exclusion.
If that weren't true, we wouldn't have a country. China could just buy up whatever it needed and erect housing for its millions right there.
Of course, we hardly have a country now. I have no idea where there is any legality in selling property to illegal aliens, but apparently banks and mortgage lenders think it's all just fine and dandy. Be interesting to see what would happen if someone were to challenge property rights involving an illegal alien "landowner".
If it's the person's private property, doesn't he have the right to sell (or not to sell) to whomever he chooses?
If someone wants to stand up and loudly announce that they're a racist, who are we to stop them?
Oh, I believe it's right next to the one decreeing expectation(s) of civilized behavior vary from group to group, nation to nation, and political belief to political belief.
Something not quite adding up. It almost sounds like a setup.
Since it is his property, why doesn't he have to right to sell to whom ever he pleases.
I don't care what the courts ruled, it is his property and he should be able to sell to whomever he pleases.
"It's a bittersweet victory for fair housing proponents, who wonder how many other people are turned away by racially restrictive deed covenants."
Rest assured, dear people, that no one else has been "turned away" because you would have heard about each and every case (loud and clear -as it should be)
Both sides did wrong.
What family would sue to buy a home in a neighborhood that doesn't want "their kind"? If *I* weren't welcome in a neighborhood, I'd choose another neighborhood. And can't the seller choose to whom they want to sell their home?
On the other hand, this reminds me of the racist Palestinians, who want Joooooos out of "their" neighborhoods.
Your points seem right on.
This kind of "iscrimination" is ugly, for the most part. The white many may well be a racist. But it shouldn't be illegal for a man to choose to whom he sells his home.
And it is odd that a rich black couple is so interested in buying this poor man's home. Perhaps they "know" something, and they'll go on to sell it to a developer for $300k. The black couple should have just "let it go," and found another home. They're crybabies. And their attorneys are nasty sharks.
You mean like a blacks only dorm at a state university?
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16297/article_detail.asp
This is a racially motivated attack by the priveledged class. I think a good resolution would be forcing the complainants to buy the house at list price and live there for a minimum of five years. Put their money where their mouth is.
The right to free association is which amendment?
Diva's Husband
No, they should have just rung up the appropriate alphabet soup gubmint agency and the house would have been theirs in 24 hours, a week tops.
IMO, this lady had a scam goin before she ever approached the old man.
Are there any blacks living in Oyster Harbors on Cape Cod?
Are there any blacks living on Gibson Island near Baltimore, MD?
You're right, but it wouldn't be a news item... and there would be no condemnation of the person who inserted the clause.
There are clearly no real damages in this case .... but there will be a money grab. Some lawyer will undoubtedly claim that the Pitts' are now suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and they haven't been able to work, and they are now experiencing health problems, etc, etc, etc.
My guess would be to rent it or fix it up and resell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.