Posted on 04/22/2005 10:54:48 PM PDT by freepatriot32
The modest brick house, with its yard full of wilting tulips and rusted old cars, isn't a candidate for the pages of Better Homes and Gardens.
But on a spring day in 2002, it was just what Nealie Pitts had in mind. She approached the owner, Rufus T. Matthews, and asked the price.
According to court documents, Matthews said the house was selling for $83,000 - but that a deed restriction meant only whites were eligible to buy it.
"I was hurt and angry, like he had slapped me in the face," Pitts, who is black, said in an e-mail.
Nearly three years later, the Virginia Office of the Attorney General said it will soon take Matthews to court for the alleged fair housing law violation.
It's a bittersweet victory for fair housing proponents, who wonder how many other people are turned away by racially restrictive deed covenants.
"We very rarely encounter anybody who believes they can be enforced," said Connie Chamberlin, president of Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME). "We are aware they're certainly out there."
In milder forms, covenants can be used to control things like the color homeowners can paint their houses.
But in the Jim Crow South, they were often used to keep neighborhoods white. Racially restrictive covenants were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1948.
"Many people don't even know they're in their deeds," Chamberlin said, adding would-be homebuyers can ask to have the racist language removed. "That can't be used as a reason to stop a sale."
According to court documents, Matthews told Pitts his house in suburban Richmond was "not for colored. We decided we are going to keep this area right here all white."
The next day she contacted HOME, which sent out a black test buyer.
"Precisely the same thing happened," Chamberlin said. "We have it on tape."
On Thursday, Matthews told The Associated Press that he would sell his home only to a white buyer. But he denied the house was for sale, saying a sale sign he had was for items in his yard. "The house has never been for sale," he said.
Matthews is accused of violating the Virginia Fair Housing Law. The same code says officials can attempt an out-of-court settlement in cases where the law has been violated.
At an April 13 meeting, the Virginia Fair Housing Board rejected a settlement offer. Board Chairman David Rubinstein declined to detail why it refused the proposal from the attorney general's office.
But Thomas Wolf, an attorney representing Pitts, said the offer would have required Matthews take two hours of class on fair housing law, at taxpayer expense.
"That is not a serious settlement proposal given the facts of the case," Wolf said. "Were they planning to pass out Happy Meals with little Confederate flags?"
Emily Lucier, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Judith Williams Jagdmann, could not explain how the proposal was formulated, but said settlement is not unheard of in discrimination cases.
Pitts is seeking $100,000 in damages in a separate case against Matthews. Lucier said because Pitts has gotten her own lawyer, the office cannot legally seek monetary damages in the civil matter.
Instead, she said, the office will continue pressing for injunctive relief and education. A court date has not been set
Hey! he's white so he's fair game for socialists liberal commies in this country.
I think they're modern thieves. These days, you don't need a gun to rob people, you can use a lawyer.
As to the church owning property, I doubt if it's true. In some sense it's not important as the family just takes over the dwelling generation after generation. They also avoid the death tax because agricultural property has huge exemptions these days -- not for the Amish but for midwest family farms.
Think of it as "affirmative action" for white people.
Because she can get his house for free. And then she can sell it for 100% profit. That's probably what she does for a living.
How can Indian tribes be sovereign nations? Aren't they allowed to vote in our elections? Do they have passports? Don't they qualify for US welfare payments?
No. There is such a thing as contract law. Offer and acceptance. If you offer something for sale, and someone accepts, you have to follow though or you can be sued. It gets complicated.
On the other hand, he did immediately inform them of the terms and restrictions of the sale.
On the other hand, his restrictions were illegal.
On the other hand, they shouldn't be.
Thanks, didn't know that. That's a good way to avoid probate -- plant a garden on top of your hardware store.
I agree that he should not lose his house over this. But not for the reasons you give here. A covenant is nothing more than a simple additional contract to a contract and people should be responsible for that which they enter into and own. In this case the covenant.
If you buy a home with a 400 foot fenced back yard and then a year later lose 300 feet to a new neighbor whose property rightfully extended into your apparent back yard, that is the cost you pay for not determining the exact boundaries prior to purchase. If your new neighbor fails to get the 300 feet of your back yard which he rightfully purchased with his hard earned money because he did not know about the Adverse Possession laws of the state, that is the price he pays for not knowing the law.
As for this guy Rufus, either not knowing the particulars of the covenant he entered into, or not knowing the legal implications that could arise over a civil rights complaint of this type, is not an excuse for limiting his responsibility. I am surprised to hear that kind of argument on FreeRepublic.
When I said "not for the Amish" I meant that the exemptions were not passed for the sake of the Amish. When you think of "farms" think of the "working farm" that Teresa Heinz-Kerry owns.
Yes to all three.
You don't look very hard. This is done all the time, usually by whites against other whites. Think Enron, Worldcomm, etc. I personally go looking for undervalued real estate and stocks all the time. Do I have to tell the other guy that you are selling it for a lot less than it is worth ?
If I am selling a car, do I have to tell the guy that the other dealer is selling a better car for a lesser price?
Let's face it. This looks like a case of a comfortable middle (or upper) class (any race) American professional couple taking advantage of a not too bright but decent poor white (or any race) guy.
Bottom line, the more intelligent and better informed take advantage of the lesser intelligent and lesser informed all the time.
What an outrageous, racist leap that is to make. Shame on you.
So also is the civil rights action being brought against Rufus.
You have to have some regulation of public commerce. Otherwise someone may build a 400 foot high wall around his property except for access. Is that fair ? If I'm you neighbor can I build a mother of all walls on my land, blocking out all sunlight from your place. Am I allowed to use my house as a halfway house for the insane ? Am I allowed to grow pot on my land ? Can I as your neighbor, build a oil refinery on my land ?
If I heard that some guy was not selling to Jews, I'd do the same thing. Not because I wanted to make money, but because I'd want to piss him off. I can't believe you guys are taking his side.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Please read post 114. This guy was stupid. Stupid people lose all the time. You guys would not be whining when the white flim flam artist gets a stoopid black guy to sign a bad loan agreement.
Stupid (any race) people are losers.
I take advantage of lesser informed or intelligent people on a regular basis.
Does the opposing wide receiver have to tell the cover corner that he is going to run an out and up because the corner is a sucker and sure to bite on the out pattern ?
If someone is pathetically stupid, I try to inform them and move on, even though I know someone else is soon to relieve him of his money.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Why should this not apply why when the fool is white.
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.