FUNDING FOR LIBERAL D.C. POWER GRAB MUST BE ZEROED OUT …
It’s been exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) for the “Republican-controlled” U.S. Senate to lift a finger in opposition to the perpetual, radical overreach of the administration of president Barack Obama. This sorry state of affairs (which we predicted last November) mirrors the chronic appeasement of the U.S. House of Representatives – which has been bending over for Obama for the last five years.
Weak …
One area where the U.S. Senate must take a stand, though, involves Obama’s “neighborhood engineering” scam – a.k.a. the so-called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” regulation. Promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), this new regulation would effectively put the federal government in charge of local zoning laws all over the country – allowing Washington, D.C. to mandate the construction of low-income housing in the middle of high-rent neighborhoods.
You know, like Hillary Clinton‘s hometown …
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
6 comments:
From what I understand, this is only going to apply to housing projects receiving money through HUD.
Elect Trump
6:35, name one that doesn't. Then we can talk.
8:27 I refrained from adding the obvious: don't take HUD money, allow the free market to determine what housing should be built and where, based upon demand.
In too many cases, the developers are the only ones who really benefit from government assistance (taxpayer's money!) to finance "affordable housing". Once they've got the subsidies in hand, that offset rarely means anything more than a guaranteed profit; ultimately the tenants still pay "full market rate", including the ones who receive more taxpayer money to make up the difference via subsidy.
If a developer wants to come to our town and plop another low income housing project on what was farmland five years ago, our town council needs to have the veracity to say no.
There is plenty of what would be "affordable housing" in Salisbury, if the government stayed the hell out of it. Some of the foreclosed homes sell for as little as $25k to $45k, and even with an equal dollar amount needed for repairs and updating, a $50k to $90k mortgage is affordable for most people.
But too often, that foreclosed home goes up for sale at a fraction of the amount owed to the bank, and the taxpayers end up covering the difference: A rental corporation buys it up, makes the minimal repairs to be able to rent it out, and someone moves in as a tenant, not a homeowner. And pays as much or more in rent, than a mortgage would have cost them.
There are many, many other aspects affecting the rental vs. homeownership issue, including local employment opportunities, cultural issues, and rental regulations and standards enforcement. But what it comes down to, is government interference results in lower homeownership, deteriorating neighborhoods and an increased concentration of crime.
9:26. Good post.
Name anything the ball-less Republicans have stopped. We need a third party option for representatives.
Post a Comment