It doesn't, and I don't believe he should lose his house either. But I won't give sympathy for his stepping on his willie.
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
I thought private sellers could discriminate on race.
That is true.
I think that is the message he was trying to convey with his "All your private property are belong to us (da gubmint)." statement.
Can you say fed gubbermint employment made this all possible. If not Fed than state or county gubbermint. I'm talking about the Black scammers who are suing.
They are trying to do a mini Mugabe on this idiot. Sorry to be racist but thing stinks of racism and it isn't white racism.
Looks to me like a Police Chief Moose scam and chili finger scam rolled into one
Moose and his (white) wife scammed a hotel out of $225,000 for a bogus racism claim
Yuck! With a beautiful house like hers, why would Pitts want a house like Matthews?
A friend once told me he had similar thoughts when he was denied admission to medical school because they only had slots for women and minorities.
It seems that only government and public institutions are allowed to discriminate in this country but the people aren't. That should be reversed.
Suppose it were some old black man getting sued by whites for more than the asking price for his house because there were a covenant someone put in the deed that it could only be sold to black people?
Would that be fair?
If the covenant is indeed active, he has little or no control over that. Some covenants exist to ensure that family members get first shot at purchasing land which has been in the family for generations. There are many different variations on that theme, and most have no racial undertones (or overtones).
Is it fair to tell anyone they have to sell their property to anyone who can come up with the cash? Or can they decide who they want to sell it to--for whatever reason?
Now, before you flame me, believe it or not this is not a racial issue, at least in my mind, despite what the covenant said. Try to get past that.
Unless this man put that covenant in the deed HE is not the one who should be butchered in court and deprived of his property for that. He worked to pay for his house like most everyone else. There is a good chance it is all he owns of any real value. Should he lose that for something someone else did?
Advising a prospective buyer of a potential legal problem, even this one, is hardly a sign of malice.
Covenants can survive in deeds for hundreds of years, and he should not be penalized for having bought the property back when.
That is sure what this seems like to me, and that is just not fair.
I agree with you, see my reply #76. The problem however arises when the offending party does not "stand up and loudly announce that they're a racist," until after the damage is done. If prior notice of intended sale restriction is made on an equal basis with the notice of intent to sell, and done so in a manner as to adequately guide denied potential buyers to move on without stopping to inquire, then I would agree that "he should be able to sell to whomever he pleases."
Your kind of comment here has been made over and over on this thread. Yet nothing in the article indicated that the black couple were any richer than the white man. The fact that they have a wealthier looking home has not indicated being wealthier for a good many decades. They most likely are mortgaged to bank on their existing home, and looking at using their equity to purchase a potential rental property, to upgrade their financial situation. People do it all the time. Or are you saying that blacks are to stupid for such improvements.
The black couple should have just "let it go," and found another home. They're crybabies.
While I agree that $100,000 seems overly excessive, but they equally should just "let it go," as they spent their time and energy inquiring into an offer to sell, only to find out after the fact, that they were pre-denied because of their race. The only "crybabies" here are those who think a person should be able to back out of an offer to sell, after action has been taken on the offer.
This is the damning part, however, and where I eat crow in this case. Matthews' statement would indeed make it appear he not only knew of the covenant, but may have been party to it being present.
I still don't think that entitles anyone to a free house, though.
'...but they equally should not just "let it go,"...'
It doesn't, and I don't believe he should lose his house either. But I won't give sympathy for his stepping on his willie.
And if you own a restaurant, should you be allowed to declare it Whites Only? A swimming pool? A movie theater?
Your statement that the "National Association of Realtors... is the biggest non union trade organization in the nation," is only based upon a very narrow definition of the word "union." In any economic practical sense of the word, it is a union. Furthermore your association could quite easily be called public enemy number one, of the free enterprise system that built this nations of our into the strong nation it is today.
Your claim that "they fight everyday for our private property rights, and monitor legislation to protect land owners rights," is also not true. They promote government control over private property and monitor legislation to keep the restrictions on property owners rights over their own property.
I don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard that Amish property is owned by their church. It would seem to be a good way to avoid the "Death Tax" and a sure-fire way to control who your neighbors are.
Of course to do that, you really, really have to trust your church.
Anybody know if this is true?
Sovereign nation tribes are a scam and and a money making racket for "connected" Donk lawyers when they try to push Indian casinos through the various state legislatures.
The only action was an inquiry.
Anything, any time, right up until money has changed hands and the papers have been signed, can be withdrawn from being for sale. That stinks, but until you make the exchange, it is theirs to do with as they will.
Not the way I do business, but legal, I am afraid.
ask... amishdude.... He's the man in all things Lancaster. How come the Amish don't have a casino?
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.