Skip to comments.Justices to hear New Jersey fair housing case ("Disparate Impact" legal doctrine on trial)
Posted on 06/20/2013 6:59:00 PM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether a New Jersey township's plan to redevelop lower income housing violated the Fair Housing Act because it would reduce affordability for minorities.
In weighing the lawsuit filed by Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action against the township of Mount Holly, the court will decide whether the statute allows for claims based on seemingly neutral practices that have a discriminatory effect.
The Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 to prohibit bias based on race in the sale or rental of housing and related services, does not explicitly allow so-called "disparate impact" claims. Courts are divided on whether such claims can be made. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.
The dispute arose in 2002 when the township decided to redevelop an area known as Mount Holly Gardens due to a high crime rate, poor maintenance and other problems. The 30-acre neighborhood was 75 percent minority in 2000. The town in 2000 was 67 percent non-Hispanic white.
The residents complained that the new proposed market-rate housing would be financially out of reach for them. They said white people would be better able to afford the new units.
A federal judge dismissed the residents' lawsuit, but in a June 2012 ruling the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said the disparate impact claims could proceed.
The Obama administration says disparate impact lawsuits should be allowed but has been keen to keep the case away from the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.
The case could affect other laws that the government has interpreted to allow disparate impact claims. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has, for example, said that it could make such claims over lending practices under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Please cite for me where in the U.S. Constitution it says "Inner-city tribal parasites must be allowed to purchase homes with their EBT's, even if they can't pay the mortgage".
The collapse of the Mortgage Industry was due to forcing un-qualified buyers to be allowed to purchase homes, with no job, just Welfare Benefits as their sole source of income....then they Defaulted (of course), and Taxpayers bailed out the Banks, to make sure THEY didn't lose anything. The Taxpayer is subsidizing the parasite population and Amnesty will just increase this burden HUGELY.
I had not heard of this case so I did a search and found an article from the Institute of Justice regarding it. This tidbit was apparently left out of the Yahoo article,
“The Township wants to give the land to Philadelphia developer Keating Urban Partners, which plans to build hundreds of higher-priced townhouses, apartments and a business center. According to Pulte Homes website, some of the new town homes will sell for in the upper $200s.”
From what I read at IFJ and other sites this may be a case of eminent domain abuse. I’m just speculating but I think they sued under disparate impact claims because SCOTUS has already given municipalities the o.k. to use eminent domain to benefit private developers.
“The collapse of the Mortgage Industry was due to forcing un-qualified buyers to be allowed to purchase homes, with no job, just Welfare Benefits as their sole source of income....”
The government forced the banks to give them the loans, then accused them of taking advantage of them. It was that simple; a “grievance industry” scam.
“From what I read at IFJ and other sites this may be a case of eminent domain abuse. Im just speculating but I think they sued under disparate impact claims because SCOTUS has already given municipalities the o.k. to use eminent domain to benefit private developers.”
Years ago in Neptune NJ they tried this; a developer wanted people forced out of their homes so he could build expensive homes (that those people could never afford). A number of the homeowners impacted were black, and I believe they won their case (without playing the race card). Emminent domain abuse is horrible; where I hike in NY state there is the remains of a town taken over in the 1960s (supposedly to build a ski center); the land has just reverted to its natural state. What a disgrace.
Redistribution, forclosed homes given to the cretans for free just ask fanny and freddy
It's mostly to benefit government. The property taxes in NJ can exceed the mortgage payment. A new townhome I looked at in a high density development had $20,000 per year property taxes. It's to feed the beast.
It's an interesting case. One one hand you do have the federal government using the disparate impact legal theory to strike down a municipaliy's action. I'm generally against that. On the other hand, you're correct, the case does present an issue of a local government potentially abusing it's eminent domain power. I'm generally also against that. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court expanded local government's eminent domain power with the Kelo ruling in 2005. Fortunately, many state legislatures have since passed laws that limit the new power the SCOTUS granted minus a state law in place.
I don’t like the disparate impact argument either and think a SCOTUS win on those arguments could lead to one hell of a mess.
“Redistribution, forclosed homes given to the cretans for free just ask fanny and freddy”
Oh, and it isn’t just that; businesses that have closed will be re-opened with minority/women business loans, and the few jobs that are created in the “new normal” economy will be set aside for them as well.
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.