Posted on 07/13/2005 10:19:51 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., July 13 (UPI) -- Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt has signed into law removing language in homes association documents that ban minorities from owning or renting property.
The homes associations with such covenants have until January to delete the restrictions or face legal action, reports The Kansas City Star.
"Language of this sort has no place at any level in our state, and I fully support this addition to the law," Blunt said before signing the bill Tuesday.
"I'm very proud," said U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who is sponsoring a similar resolution in Congress. "This means my home state, along with California, has taken this giant leap. This does more than remove a repulsive reminder of days gone by."
The Missouri bill came after a Kansas City Star investigation found that more than 1,200 documents relating to thousands of homes in the Kansas City area contained racist language.
Just what was this language?
I ran the whole story, which obviously doesn't provide this very important piece of information.
Yes. It's just a way for the pols to get their names in the paper in a pc story.
In old deeds there was sometimes a restrictive covenant that said the land could not be sold to Blacks or Jews. But this language is no longer enforcable in any state, so this is really just a window-dressing measure. Frankly, to me the racist covenants are an interesting window into the way ignorant people used to think, and a reminder of how far we have come. I don't know why it is necessary to pass a law to remove them.
Becuase it is currently illegal to alter titles and deeds. Without this law, there is no legal way for a homeowner to remove the "can not be sold to blacks" clause.
bingo and bookmark. It paves the way for "other" legislations, locally or statewide, to happen, IMHO. So that the RE industry can't be sued; nor state/local government. Hairs on the back of my neck are pinging...
btt
Yup. No court would enforce any such language, anyway.
Exactly. A friend from Unionville had a line about this in the deed to his farm. It was put in because Unionville, MO and Cincinnati, Iowa were part of the Underground Railroad prior to the Civil War.
I'm not sure what the language is but leave it to Blunt to fix another wrong. He is such an excellent governor!
I look for him to run for President someday (he's pretty young). If anyone can fix/improve this country, he can.
Lots of historical research is based on deeds. They are very long-surviving records. Should we not preserve the unpleasant truth that there was once segregation in this country? Why the rush to obliterate history?
I was simply answering the question "why" such a law is needed. It appears that the question asker, and other posters are under the impression that the owner of a property could just have the language removed. They could not.
But once again, it doesn't matter. Who cares if it's removed from the title and deeds, other than making someone feel good? It's unenforceable language.
Having said this, I have no problem with laws passed to remove this language. I guess it's interesting and quaint in a strange way to see this language, but if someone wants the legal authority to remove it, fine by me.
hrmn.
honestly, I don't know how to look at this.
on the one hand, racial bigotry is stupid and dangerous.
on the other hand, government interference in the free exercise of contractual agreements and private property rights is evil and dangerous.
Is a homeowners' association a legitimate exception? A private organization organized for a purpose other than home ownership might fall under this exemption. For example, a nonprofit association like the Sons of Norway might operate a retirement community that would be restricted to persons of Norwegian ancestry. There are retirement homes for fraternal groups like the Masons and churches like the Catholic Church. They have the right to restrict rental or ownership to fellow Masons or active Catholics. Without a common bond like ancestry, religion, or a fraternity and a purpose other than the ownership of real estate, I am not sure a homeowners' association can legally discriminate on the prohibited bases.
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.