HUD: Another Federal Agecy Wants To Regulate Your Life

Low-income housing in your neighborhood?

by Kevin Palmer, WatchDog Wire: The NSA is monitoring your phone records, HHS is ordering you to buy a set level of health insurance, the EPA is trying to tell you what kind of car you can drive and how you can heat your home…and now HUD wants to join the parade of federal bureaucracies that tell you how to live your life.

Meet HUD
HUD–the Department of Housing and Urban Development–isn’t the most famous Cabinet-level department, but it has the power to regulate the zoning laws that determine how communities are built. Under previous administrations, HUD has worked in the background and focused on expanding affordable housing, but President Obama’s HUD wants to go beyond that and force communities to racially and fiscally diversify in the name–as always–of “fairness.”

A new proposed rule would authorize HUD to send local zoning committees and planning boards more detailed data on “racial and economic disparities” in their communities, with instructions to “overcome historic patterns of segregation … and foster inclusive communities for all.”

This sounds benign until you consider the Obama-era HUD’s history of using racial data to “foster inclusive communities.” Shortly after Obama took office, HUD sued Westchester County, NY, a wealthy suburban area just north of New York City and forced the county to build hundreds of low-income housing units in majority-white areas, to be occupied by poor minorities from New York City. Now, because Westchester has allegedly been slow to build these government-mandated projects, HUD is threatening to withhold the county’s share of federal housing money, depriving the county of $7.4 million that its taxpayers have already paid.

HUD’s M.O. under Obama has approached the level of “social engineering”–a system in which the government rearranges society to fit pre-planned, utopian ideals. Under this system, citizens cannot be trusted to choose where they live of what kind of community they would like to have. Rather, the benevolent government decides how many people of each race will live in each town, and ensures that high-income, middle-class, and low-income people are sharing the same space. In the name of “equality,” social engineering effectively destroys consumer choice.

The Pros and Cons of Social Engineering
Supporters of social engineering and HUD’s recent actions will cite segregation, which the famous Brown vs. Board of Education decision put an end to. They see these programs as “enforcing” Brown by ending racial disparity in all areas of society. In their eyes, if 80 percent of a neighborhood’s residents are white, this is a product of discrimination against minorities, and the government must step in to defeat this racism by moving non-whites into the neighborhood, and “incentivizing” whites to move to other neighborhoods.

Progressives apply this same line of thinking to income. In their mind, a high-income suburban town represents hoarding of resources that should be “shared.” Through lawsuits like the one against Westchester County, HUD forces communities to build low-income housing in high-income areas to resolve this alleged discrimination. And through this new rule, HUD may also try to build middle-class housing in poor inner-city neighborhoods to encourage wealthier people to leave the suburbs for lower-income areas.

Opponents of social engineering generally argue that the citizen, and not the government, has the power to determine where he or she lives. They may also point to the negative effects of social engineering programs: increased crime in high-income communities, expansion of the illegal drug trade and gang activity into suburban areas, and reduction of the property tax base. In fact, a study by Emory University found that when Chicago and Atlanta relocated their public housing projects, violent crime rose in areas where low-income residents were moved to.

For example, suppose the government orders a suburban town known for its excellent schools to build low-income housing–because it’s “unfair” that children from poor areas don’t have access to these schools. In anticipation of the crime and drug problems that projects can bring to a small town, high-income families may move elsewhere–taking millions of dollars in property taxes with them! Without these taxes, the schools’ performance drops, defeating the entire purpose of building the housing project.

Ironically, the Obama administration officials defending HUD’s activity have argued that a ZIP code shouldn't determine a child’s future. Yet at the same time, President Obama vigorously opposes school choice, going so far as to shut down the successful program in Washington, DC that allowed children trapped by their ZIP code in failing schools to attend better schools. Clearly, the message on “ZIP codes” coming out the White House is conflicted, but the message on expanding the federal government’s power over individuals is not.

What Do You Think?
Fortunately, HUD is allowing citizens to comment on the proposed rule. Click here to read the rule, and give the Obama administration your feedback on whether the federal government should be using racial and income data to redesign neighborhoods. When the government tries to restrict rights and choice, citizens can’t afford to pass on an opportunity to speak up and defend what is important to them.

**CLICK HERE to file a public comment with HUD on this issue

---

Tags: HUD, Federal Agency, Regulate your agency, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!