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
You are so wrong it's pathetic. Just for the record.
Why are any deed restrictions enforceable then, as a practical matter? Dred Scott is dragged out as an example of how flawed thinking ruled in the 19th Century, but what other possible counclusion could a jurist have come up with considering the legal precedent?
Pragmatically speaking of course.
Well I guess banning lynch mobs does reduce freedoms for the majority.
I will say that the white percentage in the US is at 70% and falling. You better get used to dealing with other non white people. Everyone else is and you will be the odd ball person if you don't.
Great comeback... very intelligent and well thought out. </sarcasm>
It's also interesting to note that even though they were in the minority in Congress, the 1964 CRA was heavily supported by...Republicans!
"You're certainly welcome to your own opinion. What you don't get is your own set of facts."
What fact, or facts, did I misrepresent?
Or are you going to just throw around terms like "newbie" and "pimply faced" and not back it up.
The fact is that the home seller in this case was in violation of fair housing law that dates back to 1866. This law reaches back to the civil war, and your side lost.
Let me know when your ready to join us in the 21st Century, or maybe you can join forces with the Jihadists who want to bring us back to the 12th.
It's kind of like this.
The Christians won the Crusades.
The North won the Civil War.
Gore lost in 2000.
Understand the pattern. I hope so.
You exhibit a desire to misrepresent the notion that a federal statute somehow trumps the federal constitution.
I don't know how things are in England, but race relations in the US are quite good. Major incidents of anti (any race) are relatively rare. No one here wants to exterminate anyone. If you ever move to the US, you should think about changing your attitude.
"You exhibit a desire to misrepresent the notion that a federal statute somehow trumps the federal constitution."
Where?
What part of the 14th amendment, which grants all citizens equal standing in terms of the law, do you not understand?
You could make the argument that the CRB of 1866 was not valid until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1888. However, the law has been around and absolutely constitutional for 117 years.
The culture of death is a problem world wide. No one is immune to it. You make it sound as if someone else is doing the killing when it is the person's own choices bringing about the result you don't like. No one can be indoctrinated into killing an unborn baby or taking pills or wearing condoms if there isn't a grain of selfishness in them already. I would suggest less worrying about the 'white race' which is big, as most Middle Easterners,Indians and Australian Aboriginals are also classified as white. The white race isn't going anywhere any more than any other race. Cultivating a culture of life within yourself and your family will do wonders for population increase. I've already made a personal committment to no birth control in my marriage and I'm against abortion.
Interesting analysis.
The majority was equally disgusted by the mobs, else they would not have been illegal.
Well go right ahead and beileve what you will. But you need to step back and take a real good look.
You called me a racist member of the KKK. That kind of ad hominem attack is totally inappropriate for FR, not only because it's entirely untrue, but also because it lowers the discourse. You weren't adding anything to the conversation. Take your mud-flinging elsewhere.
I just wanted to make it clear that your accusations are repulsive, and untrue.
I think this "sounds" like they are creating a tempest for "shocked shocked I say" outrage. Those covenants are totally unenforceable and I am surprised it was even on the deed. The owner must have lived there for over 40 years.
These are as unenforceable as covenents against jewish or catholic buyers. The fact that they got some lawyer sounds like it was a PR effort by the lawyer.
(s)now if had been a covenant restriction against while males that would have been enforceable and al sharpton would have been marching inthe street. (/s)
I wonder if entrapment might be a defense for the man.
It appear this couple knew about the covenant and knew about this man. They intentionally set him up.
They are using his ignorance to take his house for free.
Seriously, who sees the deed when LOOKING for a house?
If he really did a fair housing violation that is fine and can be adressed. The sad fact is these "buyers" are going to be given a free pass for the same reason they are claiming outrage. skin color.
Actually, the property's chain of title requires all covenants to remain on the deed regardless of their legality. What surprises me is that there hasn't been another covenant added that explicitly makes it clear the privious one is null and void.
Without knowing the specifics of the property in question's development, its hard to determine if the entity responsible for adding the 'whites only' covennant is still in existance. Usually it's the developer or home owners association that tacked on the covenant.
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.