Charlesinrichmond t1_j68rqyp wrote
"Black homeownership rates increased slightly, from 47% to 49%, but still lag behind white homeownership at 70%."
we really need to do better on this front. Not sure how. Maybe better low income housing loan programs? What we have is perhaps too complicated for the people it's aimed at, we need something simpler
gowhatyourself t1_j69d1hf wrote
I mean we have programs and grants and what not but it's been tricky to deploy due to how competitive everything has been the last few years. What good is grant money if you can't get someone to accept an offer because you state you are using a VHDA loan vs someone coming in hot with conventional? It helps the buyer but can also weaken the offer so it's a catch 22.
Jellyfishes_OW t1_j6ajpbk wrote
Do NOT use VHDA. We did. They still owe us over $1100 from where we refinanced. We've been fighting them for over a year at this point.
Charlesinrichmond t1_j69j3e1 wrote
yeah. And it's convoluted
blackdragon8577 t1_j6ezxnd wrote
That is what disgusts me about these "love letters" to home owners trying to manipulate them into taking less money than their home is worth. Or, much more likey, prey on their bigotry to violate federal laws.
My sister did it in a notoriously racist area. Of course she includes a picture of her new baby with her and her husband.
Letting the homeowner see they are white and have a child. Either of which is easily a violation of the fair housing act. Not to mention sexuality.
I'm sure she also mentioned how she is a church member in good standing in the community and other bullshit. Third violation.
It's such a despicable practice that allows the easy propagation of bigotry and prejudice against protected classes.
Charlesinrichmond t1_j6fgcui wrote
it does allow easy bigotry, but no violations if your sister or any other random person does it. First amendment applies
Possible violation if a real estate agent does it.
blackdragon8577 t1_j6fvyj5 wrote
It is a violation if the homeowner decides to accept her offer over another person's based on any of the protected classes.
My sister specifically might not be in violation, but it is morally wrong.
Just because it isn't specifically illegal doesn't mean that it isn't still wrong.
Charlesinrichmond t1_j6ijazk wrote
no it isn't. An obligation of some sort that is being violated is required. And I agree it could be wrong, but it's not a violation, 2 different issues.
Source: went to law school
blackdragon8577 t1_j6irp77 wrote
Ok, genuinely curious here. If a homeowner has two offers. One for $150,000 and one for $200,000.
The lower offer sends one of these letters revealing that they are white, have kids, and go to a local evangelical church.
The higher offer does not send anything additional. Just the monetary offer.
If the homeowner accepts the lesser offer because they know that the lower offer is from a white person would that not be illegal?
And if it is not, then what has to happen in order for it to be illegal?
Does the homeowner also need to know that the higher offer is from a person of color and decide to not sell to them based on that?
Or is it that the realty agent is the one that would be held at fault for the homeowner being racist?
IDK, I am super confused based on your reply.
Charlesinrichmond t1_j6iwi1r wrote
no, wouldn't be illegal. Probably can't be made illegal, because of free speech. Any more than we could make say being a socialist illegal.
Now what can be done is nibbling around the edges - ie disallowing agents to work with them sort of thing.
Basically, govt can regulate commerce, but not viewpoint.
It's a lot to put in a reddit thread. But basically being a racist is legal, even though it's stupid. Can't regulate that due to bill of rights. But we can regulate commercial transactions. So the agents can't do the stuff that the individuals can. Does that make sense? We are never going to be perfect, so structurally we err on the side of more freedom
see this:
blackdragon8577 t1_j6jg2xv wrote
So, what you are saying is that a private homeowner can be racist, sexist, or whatever kind of bigot they want. And they can choose to openly discriminate against other people using that bigoted world view when selling their home.
However, as soon as a real estate agent gets involved, that is where the laws start to kick in because that agent is a legal entity in a commercial transaction instead of a regular citizen selling something to a regular citizen.
(I know you aren't condoning the bigotry we are talking about here, but I just like to make sure I understand.)
No law can prevent an individual from being racist and acting according to their racism, as long as they are doing it as a private citizen. The moment they move into a commercial enterprise, operating under a business license, using a realtor, etc. they are then beholden to the law.
Which is why a private seller can do whatever they want.
But let's say that a seller was going through a real estate agent. The seller makes it very clear that they will not sell their home to a black person. The agent brings the offers to the seller and the top bid also has one of these love letters in them revealing that the family buying the home is black.
The seller refuses that offer and instructs the realty agent to accept a lower offer from another family because they refuse to sell to a black person.
In this instance, would someone be in violation of the law? If so, who?
Or does the real estate agent need to be the one actually committing the racial discrimination?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments