It was recently announced that if Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wins the White House in November, he will seek to add on to Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule that was added to the Fair Housing Actin in 2015.
In doing so, Biden would permanently be destroying the suburbs of America. However, I am here to tell you that as of Thursday morning, that is no longer possible, thanks to President Trump.
No, Trump has not figured out a way to ensure himself a win in the upcoming election. But he has put an end to the entire rule, barring Biden from expanding on it in any way, should he be elected.
The plan for such an end to the rule was given Wednesday night in an exclusive interview of Trump’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the Daily Caller. In the interview, the department’s secretary, Ben Carson, describes the recently ended program and why the Trump administration was so against its continuation.
It was determined that Obama’s administration added the AFFH rule in an effort to hold local HUD grantees accountable for how they were using the funds given to them by the federal government. This was mainly done by “producing and maintaining assessments of fair housing practices.” However, having such assessments completed meant that 64 new employees had to be added to the HUD payroll, which, as the Daily Caller notes, “cost American taxpayers up to $15 million a year.”
In addition, having such employees meant that those local communities were not really involved in their own governing. Instead, it was federally paid employees who were now assessing and determining where and who would receive housing funds.
Furthermore, with the high costs of receiving, producing, and delivering these specific assessments to HUD officials, as well as getting them through “zoning changes to maintain compliance,” many local jurisdictions, and often the ones needing the funds the most, couldn’t afford to even use the program. And so the funds were given to other areas, you know, wealthier regions just looking for some extra cash.
President Trump, with the help of those like Secretary Carson, decided this was unfair to low income communities and doing much more harm than good.
Secretary Carson told the Daily Caller on Wednesday, “In nearly every case, it is a fact that local governments are more adequately equipped to deal with their community’s unique needs than any unelected bureaucrat in Washington.”
And I have to agree. Who knows what the community needs, where low-income housing should be created, and to what extent, better than those who live in that community? Some “unelected bureaucrat in Washington,” as Carson says, many who have never even traveled to the location they are doling out funds and assessments for, have no idea what the needs are. And therefore, they shouldn’t be the ones calling the shots.
And then there is the threat that Biden posed to those communities, as well as the suburbs of America.
Biden, as a staunch believer that anything Obama did was holy and, therefore, should be continued, has made it clear he would not have only kept this program intact but would have expanded it to include most American suburbs. Suburban areas would then be under urban control. Those who live there would no longer have a say in communities. Instead, it would be federal government officials doing it for them.
Just another example of how the socialist left is pushing for more government and less “for the people” decisions.
As the man who is believed to have first learned about the recent change in policy, Stanley Kurtz, noted, Biden’s extended influence on the program would essentially “abolish the suburbs.” Kurtz said that making this a vital issue in Trump’s campaign could be a game-changer for him, forcing “Democrats to either retreat from this attempt to put suburbs under urban control or lose the suburban voters that gave them their House majority.”
In either case, it would be a win for Trump and the Republicans.
As Senator Mike Lee says of Trump’s HUD decision, “Every American should be free to choose where to live, and every community should be free to compete for new residents as they see fit. What our communities do not need is another costly government mandate that makes it harder for local communities to govern. The reversal of President Obama’s burdensome housing rule is a strong step towards more affordable housing.”