Posted on 08/12/2011 4:34:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
JOHN P. WALSH learned five years ago that some people don't especially care for him. He still hasn't gotten over that discovery.
Maybe it's himself he needs to get over.
The revelation that we aren't everyone's cup of tea is something most of us manage to figure out by the time we get through kindergarten. But Walsh, a self-made millionaire and chief executive of the Elizabeth Grady skin-care salon chain, apparently didn't realize it until 2006, when he tried to buy a unit in a luxury cooperative on Beacon Hill and was turned down by the board. Residential co-ops by definition are private associations that choose their own shareholders; would-be residents may not buy in without the approval of the existing owners. And in the case of 68 Beacon Street, a nine-story co-op overlooking Boston's Public Garden, the existing owners concluded -- as they put it in their rejection letter -- that "Mr. Walsh would not reasonably coalesce as a member of this cooperative community."
In response, Walsh embarked on a campaign to paint the co-op's board, and especially its chairman, Jonathan Winthrop, as snobs and social creeps. He told reporters he had been discriminated against because he lacked "blue blood" and "was not of the same social status" as the building's residents. He filed a lawsuit over his rejection and claimed in a deposition that he was a victim of "ancient and archaic values" by a group of "bigoted people." The residents of 68 Beacon Street paid $2.2 million to settle the case -- an outrageous amount of money, but worth paying, perhaps, to put an end to Walsh's vendetta.
Except that Walsh wasn't finished. With the help of friends in the Legislature, he has been pushing for a law to make housing cooperatives all but illegal in Massachusetts. Twice lawmakers have passed a bill that would allow co-ops to reject a prospective purchaser only on strict financial grounds. Twice Governor Deval Patrick vetoed the bill. So co-op boards in the Bay State are still free to turn down a would-be owner who might be richer than Bill Gates but who, in the board's judgment, would not be a good fit for the community the residents have created for themselves. The kind of owner, to take a theoretical example, who thinks being a self-made millionaire entitles him to anything he wants, and who is quick to level accusations of bigotry -- or to file a lawsuit -- when he doesn't get his way.
Now a third version of Walsh's bill is making its way through the Legislature. It would require every co-op to provide an explicit justification for its own existence, and a board that rejected an applicant would have to detail its reasons in writing. In effect, the bill would spell the end of co-ops like the one at 68 Beacon Street. And all because Walsh, a rags-to-riches millionaire who grew up in Somerville, felt snubbed by the old-money Brahmins who own the building.
Some lawmakers make no secret of their hatred for the freedoms of choice and association that co-ops embody. "When people get to choose their neighbors, bad things happen," says state Senator Barry Finegold, a cosponsor of Walsh's bill. "I think it is fundamentally wrong and I don't think that is what we as a state are about." But then, why stop with residential co-ops? Why should people be allowed to choose the town or neighborhood they live in? Why should parents have the option of choosing the school their children attend? Why should customers be permitted to choose where to shop?
Finegold's political campaigns, the Globe reported last month, "have gotten generous financial support from Walsh." Was that fair to Finegold's opponents? Can't "bad things happen" if donors are free to choose which politicians get their money? And what about Walsh's business? Should anyone who wishes to join the Elizabeth Grady Co.'s board of directors be entitled to do so? Suppose Jonathan Winthrop were nominated for a seat on Walsh's board.
Would Finegold see something "fundamentally wrong" with allowing Walsh to reject his bid? Every liberty can be abused, and every right to choose can result in bad choices. It is one thing to curb freedom to prevent fraud or widespread social harm. But in a free society, there is no guarantee your feelings will never be hurt. Even if you're John P. Walsh, the law can't make everyone love you. Not even in Massachusetts.
One of the many places I worked was a very well known private club where the members with "old money" hated and belittled the members with "new" {self made} money.
The grunts working for tips couldn't see the difference, so we just cleaned our guns and read our Bible.
Oh, the old money folks treated the "workers" as if we were furniture, they knew we were there, but we didn't count, so they could say or do anything they wanted to with no consequence.
I think the co-op showed good judgment. Who the heck wants to live next to a creep like Walsh?
He should really get over himself and see what kind of prospective residents were rejected by some prominent New York City co-ops. Having a lot of money doesn't mean you get to force your way into other people's lives.
Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
And, implied, is the right NOT to associate with people who DON’T share your common interests.
would allow co-ops to reject a prospective purchaser only on strict financial grounds.
That’s not “fair” either. Why should only rich people get to live in fancy buildings. Lets have a law forcing co-ops to sell apartments on an “affordable” price.
It's envy, mother of hate. Old money envies new money because new money actually earned it rather than inheriting it.
I agree, but why would you want to have neighbors who don’t want you? A pretty expensive point to make.
More to the point, "new money" has demonstrated the ABILITY to earn money. "Old money" just inherited an ancestor's money, but not necessarily the intelligence, drive, and energy which enabled the ancestor to create that fortune. For many, it may be the bitterness which comes from the knowledge that if they ever lost their fortunes, they would have difficulty holding a minimum wage job.
Don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to live in a building that would allow me as a neighbor!
Good morning, Groucho!
The Northeastern limo liberals who consider themselves superior beings to others are insufferable slobs. They are the ones who harass everyone else in forbidding them the right to chose their associations in housing rentals but don’t expect to be held to the same unconsitutional laws they use against everyone else.
If I don’t have the freedom to refuse a rental to people based on their behaviors and lifestyles, the idiots who put those unconstitutional laws in place should suffer the same loss of freedom in association.
Often we see news of an elderly widow placing an ad for another woman to share the house. Worse still a Christian female!!!
The ones that make the news are the tip of the iceberg.
What’s good for the goose....
Explain what you meant to me. Thanks.
I see nothing wrong with widowed women sharing space and resources with one another when they need to. They advertise for Christian women because they don’t want to live with men outside marriage and all it’s complications.
So, I don’t understand what you are saying here. Thanks.
The right to discriminate should be available to all. Not just co-op owners.
As the owner of rental property I prefer to choose my tenets.
From HUD.GOV
In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:
Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing.
Advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. This prohibition against discriminatory advertising applies to single-family and owner-occupied housing that is otherwise exempt from the Fair Housing Act...
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights
The right to discriminate should be available to all. Not just co-op owners.
As the owner of rental property I prefer to choose my tenets.
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.