Disparate impact case will hurt the poor

Washington Free Beacon:
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that racist intent is not necessary to prove accusations of racism in housing.

The court ruled 5-4 in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointee, that the disparate impact doctrine could be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The case rested on whether Texas officials could be found liable for building low income housing in minority-centric areas rather than wealthier suburbs where the population is more likely to be white.

Kennedy ruled that plaintiffs could use demographic tests to prove that housing project locations are inherently racist.

“[FHA] permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment,” Kennedy ruled.

Amy Wax, a University of Pennsylvania law professor and disparate impact expert, said that the ruling could end up hurting the poor residents it is intended to help. If disparate impact is used to determine whether low-income housing belongs in poorer neighborhoods or wealthier suburbs, it could hamper the ability to efficiently build such housing anywhere.

“It will almost certainly result in a lot of worthy low income projects being held up indefinitely,” she said in a phone interview with the Washington Free Beacon. “On one hand you’re trying to integrate [communities], on the other hand there’s going to be backlogs and long waiting lists.”

A dissent authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s only African-American justice, said that the court’s opinion injects racial considerations into all housing decisions.
...
I think it will lead to fewer homes being built for the poor.  Why take the chance that you will be sued for something you did not intend?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more