So the racial restrictions were fine with you?
Posted on 04/22/2005 10:54:48 PM PDT by freepatriot32
Blacks, Jews, Indian and Asians. Even some in the Wianno Club.
In terms of the present case, this lady is probably into house flipping. It would be interesting to see how many houses she has bought in the past 5 years. Probably a lot. Notice she doesn't say she wants to live there.
I don't think the article was a well written one. The following indicates that Rufus doesn't want to sell his house. It'd be nice if we had the entire story.
[Rufus] 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.
ya know.... which brings up a five year old matter of Californians tyring to buy beach front property in Mexico, only to be later told that the purchase was illegal because only Mexicans can own beach front property in Mexico, and the homes were taken and sold to a rich Mexican .... who seeks to make them into rental properties.
I wonder if this lady has a history of finding fingers in Chili.
I looked at the article and I agree it's not clear what's going on.
Rufus may be less than honest about his version of events.
But did the sign say For Sale or House for Sale?
And what's on this tape that claims to verify discrimination?
My suspicions aren't about race but money. Why are a rich couple going door to door trying to buy property in a poor neighborhood?
They obviously have the money to hire an agent to buy property for them. What, they never heard of MLS?
This looks like the couple have an agenda.
An agenda that, while it appears to be based on equal rights to housing which they obviously don't need, will put $100,000 in they're pockets without the burden of buying a property in a poor white neighborhood at an inflated price.
(bear in mind the US housing market is booming).
If they were a poor black couple looking for their first home in an affordable neighborhood I might be more sympathetic.
100 grand because she was offended? Ridiculous!
That is why most people should use a Realtor. Realtors pay Errors and Omission insurance on every transaction. If the Realtor does not know the law in that area, they are still covered, so is the seller.
The National Association of Realtors has over a million members, it is the biggest non union trade organization in the nation. They fight everyday for our private property rights, and monitor legislation to protect land owners rights.
Yep, sounds like a setup 100%. Especially how they sent right over a "test" buyer with hidden camera. This poor little cracker never knew what hit him. He will likely now lose his home to them for free, owe them an additional $17,000 and they will also find a way to have him owe the IRS a few thousand to boot.
So the racial restrictions were fine with you?
In NYC, there are thousands of acres of public housing so designated for Blacks and hispanics.
Still waiting for that article about whites being discriminated against for some rental properties.
Some landlords would rather have section 8's - it's a guaranteed payment from the government. And some feel it's more likely a white person, paying from their own pocket, is a greater non-payment risk.
My source is anecdotal, but perhaps some enterprising journalist could do some research.
I would try to act surprised, but I am not an actress.
Kinda sounds that way, doesn't it?
I agree with you 100%. As I see it, an individual should be free to discriminate in any manner they so desire. There is however one small problem when an offer to sell is publicly posted (i.e. "for sale" sign). Unless a public notice giving notice of the restriction as easily readable (i.e. "For White People Only" sign) is also posted, damage will have been done to all those who spend their time and energy to inquire into that which they had already been denied them before hand.
I wonder if the United Negro College Fund gives money to whites?
That said, it is his land, he can sell (or not sell) it to whomever he pleases. That right is afforded to everyone not nailed by emminent domain, regardless of race, creed, etc..
If there was a covenant in the deed, chances are it was there when he acquired the property, and the poor slob is just stuck in the middle.
I believe such covenants are deemed void, anyway, so he just gets nailed every which way for something someone else wrote in, and that he mentioned as a caveat.
If you don't think that is a raw deal, then you should reevaluate what you think 'fair' is.
Areas that are deemed sovereign through various Tribes and the U.S. government negotiations. Apples and oranges.
That said, it is his land, he can sell (or not sell) it to whomever he pleases. That right is afforded to everyone not nailed by emminent domain, regardless of race, creed, etc..
If a property is open to the public for sale, a racial restriction is going to fun afoul of the law.
I believe such covenants are deemed void, anyway, so he just gets nailed every which way for something someone else wrote in, and that he mentioned as a caveat.
If they are void, why would he mention it as a caveat? It's void, right?
If you don't think that is a raw deal, then you should reevaluate what you think 'fair' is.
I am not fair. I'm right.
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.