Thanks for this post, Phil. The Zerohedge article is entirely correct in its assessment of Obama's new AFFH rule.
The article is especially correct that leftists have tried to point out that current regional programs already "annex" suburbs. As Aubrey and I have been trying to point out (without much success in my opinion), the type of annexation described in the article is exactly what Plan Bay Area has been doing for a while now.
The article is also correct that the recent US Supreme Court decision which declares that intent is not necessary in making a neighborhood illegally discriminatory promotes regionalism as a remedy.
So, how does the article jump from these two facts to the totally wrong conclusion of what would right the wrong?
"The only
thing that can restore local control is joint action by a Republican president
and a Republican congress to rescind AFFH and restrict the reach of disparate
impact litigation. We’ll know after November 8, 2016." Given that the legislation already in the books is mostly based on "environmental sustainability" with remedies to ensure that sustainability does not result in "inequality" -- which is independent from AFFH's pure inequality drumbeat -- and given that the Supreme Court decision cannot go away via legislation, the Zerohedge article poses a nonsense conclusion, in spite of its excellent analysis of AFFH. I suggest that the LPSF focus on the real conclusion: without funding the legislation already on the books, as well as new legislation coming in at a fast clip, is going nowhere. As an aside, I noticed that the article did not seem to mention that he who pays the piper calls the tune. If the states want federal funds, they better march to the federal drum. Marcy To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com