Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To explain why your communities are being ruined. Grok answers and eventually admits that it is exactly as first questioned a mandate to have racially mixed communities nationally
Grok ^ | 05.24.25 | chickensoup

Posted on 05/24/2025 10:13:25 AM PDT by Chickensoup

To explain why your communities are being ruined. Grok answers and eventually admits that it is exactly as first questioned a mandate to have racially mixed communities nationally

Q National mandate was through HUD in the Obama administration to have every zip code reflect national race proportions. what is the name of the mandate ? A There was no national mandate under the Obama administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) explicitly requiring every zip code to reflect national racial proportions. The policy often associated with efforts to address racial segregation and housing disparities is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, finalized in 2015.

The AFFH rule, under the Fair Housing Act, required local governments and housing authorities receiving federal funds to assess and address patterns of segregation and discrimination in housing. It provided communities with data on racial demographics, poverty levels, and other factors to promote fair housing practices and reduce disparities. While it aimed to foster more integrated communities, it did not mandate that every zip code mirror national racial proportions. Claims suggesting such a specific requirement often stem from misinterpretations or exaggerations of the AFFH’s goals.

📷

If you’re referring to a specific claim or source, feel free to provide more details, and I can dig deeper

Q How were the governments and housing authorities to address patterns of discrimination in housing under this rule? A. Under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, finalized by HUD in 2015 during the Obama administration, local governments and public housing authorities receiving federal funds were required to take proactive steps to address patterns of housing discrimination and segregation. The rule aimed to promote fair housing and reduce disparities by ensuring communities actively worked toward equitable housing access. Here’s how they were expected to address these patterns:

Conduct an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH): Jurisdictions had to complete a detailed analysis using HUD-provided data tools, which included demographic data on race, ethnicity, poverty, disability, and access to opportunities (e.g., schools, jobs, transportation). The AFH identified barriers to fair housing, such as zoning laws, discriminatory lending practices, or unequal access to housing resources, and pinpointed areas of segregation or racially concentrated poverty.

Develop Goals and Strategies: Based on the AFH findings, governments and housing authorities were required to set specific, measurable goals to address identified issues. Strategies could include revising zoning ordinances to allow more affordable housing, investing in underserved neighborhoods, improving access to quality schools or transit, or enforcing anti-discrimination laws more robustly. Integrate Findings into Planning: The AFH was to be incorporated into broader planning documents, like Consolidated Plans and Public Housing Agency Plans, which guide how federal housing funds are spent. This ensured fair housing considerations were part of decisions on housing development, community revitalization, and resource allocation.

Community Engagement: The rule mandated public participation, requiring jurisdictions to consult with residents, community organizations, and fair housing groups to ensure diverse perspectives shaped the AFH and proposed solutions. This aimed to address local needs and build accountability.

Monitor and Report Progress: Jurisdictions were required to track progress on their fair housing goals and submit regular reports to HUD. HUD could review these efforts and, if necessary, withhold funding from entities failing to comply with the rule. Key Focus Areas:

Reducing racial and ethnic segregation.

Addressing disparities in access to community assets (e.g., quality schools, healthcare, jobs). Combating discriminatory practices, such as redlining or exclusionary zoning.

Promoting inclusive housing options, like affordable units in high-opportunity areas.

The AFFH rule did not dictate specific outcomes (e.g., mandating racial proportions in zip codes) but emphasized local flexibility to tailor solutions to unique community challenges. It provided data and a framework to guide decision-making while holding recipients of federal funds accountable for advancing fair housing.

If you’d like details on specific tools, examples of AFH plans, or how the rule was implemented in certain areas, let me know!

Q What are the benchmark data set used to spot and assess disparities? A Under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule finalized by HUD in 2015, local governments and public housing authorities were provided with specific benchmark data sets to identify and assess disparities in housing and access to opportunities. These data sets were part of HUD’s Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) tool, designed to help jurisdictions analyze patterns of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), and inequities in access to community assets. Below are the key benchmark data sets used:

HUD-Provided Data (AFFH Data and Mapping Tool): Demographic Data: Racial and ethnic composition of populations at the census tract, jurisdiction, and regional levels. Data on national origin, limited English proficiency (LEP), disability status, and family status. Identification of R/ECAPs, defined as areas with significant poverty (over 40% poverty rate) and a majority non-white population. Housing Data: Distribution of housing types (e.g., single-family, multifamily, public housing). Locations of subsidized housing (e.g., Section 8, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties). Homeownership rates by race/ethnicity. Housing cost burden (percentage of income spent on housing) by demographic group. Opportunity Indices: School Proficiency Index: Measured access to high-performing schools based on test scores and proximity. Jobs Proximity Index: Evaluated access to employment centers based on distance and job density. Labor Market Engagement Index: Assessed employment rates, education levels, and labor force participation by area. Transit Access Index: Measured proximity to public transportation and frequency of service. Environmental Health Index: Evaluated exposure to environmental hazards (e.g., pollution, toxic sites). Poverty Index: Analyzed poverty concentration and economic segregation. Segregation and Integration Metrics: Dissimilarity Index: Quantified the degree of racial/ethnic segregation between groups within a jurisdiction or region. Isolation Index: Measured the extent to which a racial/ethnic group is isolated from others. Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Compared access to schools, jobs, transit, and other assets across racial/ethnic groups and income levels.

Local and Regional Data: Jurisdictions were encouraged to supplement HUD’s data with local sources, such as: Zoning and land-use policies. Local housing authority records (e.g., waitlists, voucher usage). Community surveys or resident feedback. Data from state or regional planning agencies (e.g., transportation or economic development plans). These local data sets helped contextualize HUD’s standardized metrics and address jurisdiction-specific issues. Publicly Available Federal Data: HUD drew from broader federal sources, including: U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey (ACS) data for demographics, income, housing, and poverty. Department of Education: School performance metrics. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Environmental hazard and air quality data. Department of Transportation: Transit access and infrastructure data. How Data Was Used to Spot and Assess Disparities: Mapping Tools: HUD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) provided interactive maps showing demographic patterns, R/ECAPs, and opportunity indices at the census tract level. This helped visualize disparities, such as concentrations of poverty or unequal access to high-performing schools.

Comparative Analysis: Jurisdictions compared demographic groups (e.g., by race, ethnicity, or income) to identify disparities in housing cost burden, homeownership, or access to jobs and transit.

Segregation Metrics: The Dissimilarity and Isolation Indices quantified how segregated or integrated a community was, highlighting areas needing intervention.

Opportunity Gaps: Opportunity indices revealed inequities, such as whether minority groups lived farther from quality schools or jobs compared to white residents. Community Input: The rule required jurisdictions to pair quantitative data with qualitative input from residents and stakeholders to identify barriers not captured in data sets, like discriminatory practices or community perceptions.

Access and Implementation:

HUD provided these data sets free to jurisdictions through the AFFH-T online platform, ensuring accessibility for communities of varying resources.

Jurisdictions used the data to complete their AFH, which informed goals and strategies to reduce disparities, such as revising zoning laws or targeting investments in underserved areas.

Note: The AFFH rule’s implementation was partially suspended in 2018 under the Trump administration, and a revised version was reinstated in 2021 under the Biden administration. Data sets and tools have evolved, but the core metrics remain focused on demographics, housing, and opportunity access. If you’d like specifics on a particular data set, examples of disparities identified, or how a specific jurisdiction used these tools, let me know!


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: hud; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: Feckless

not even one tenth.

And the rules have to be changed now.


21 posted on 05/24/2025 1:13:02 PM PDT by Chickensoup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

“Why is it that the “diversity” proponents always complain there are “too many whites”?”

Why is it, after saying it, there is not ever, I mean EVER, a push to move the whites into another area?

Please, why is that?


22 posted on 05/24/2025 1:46:26 PM PDT by Racketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

I am in no way minimizing the government efforts to destroy middle class neighborhoods, but what I believe started it was the proliferation of low cost apartment complexes which began in the 70s. Those slowly but surely destroyed the middle class community I grew up in.


23 posted on 05/24/2025 2:08:58 PM PDT by suthener ( I do not like living under our homosexual, ghetto, feminist government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: suthener

Yes.

Obama HUD administration codified it and now nationally cheap government housing is being built in every town. Except where the elite live.

Elite communities refuse HUD Monies


24 posted on 05/24/2025 2:20:41 PM PDT by Chickensoup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“LEGALIZED EXTORTION”

Every “consent decree” from the communist “Civil Rights Division” of the DOJ under the Dems was nothing but shakedowns and legalized extortion.


25 posted on 05/24/2025 3:45:51 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom (“Diversity is our Strength” just doesn’t carry the same message as “Death from Above”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson