Ed Illinois couple sued for deciding not to sell their home...

[cwalner]

Indeed. HUD only has the realtor saying that the seller didn't want to sell to a black family. The sellers says they backed out because they decided they wanted to hold out for the full asking price. Who's to say who's telling the truth?

Were not racists, your honor, just complete and utter morons. We backed out of an offer for 95% of our full asking price on a property that has been on the market for over two years, because we wanted the full asking price. Then we pulled the house off the market completely.

Honest, your honor, it had nothing to do with the buyer's race

PUH-LEASE

 

[MikeMangum]

You realize, of course, that in making this analogy you are asking us to consider that black people are inadequate home owners. I wouldn't sell my dog to someone who couldn't care for it, therefore I shouldn't sell my house to a black person?

I'm going to hope that you made the analogy without careful consideration. The alternative is racism.

Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make! *buzzer* The Race card is maxxed out.

 

[MontagK505]

There is a whole lot of misinformation in this thread about the law - both regarding civil rights and contracts.

To understand the civil rights law, we need to look at the situation that the law was created to correct. White people were voluntarily segregating themselves from blacks, creating white-only and black-only areas. Deeds frequently contained covenants that the property could not be sold to anyone who wasn't white. Realtors regularly steered buyers towards their corresponding racial neighborhoods. Black buyers weren't even shown houses in white areas, or were lied to about price or availability.

I should not be required to defend the idea that segregation is bad. Courts and legislatures were presented with evidence that predominently black areas received worse municipal services, police coverage, and other government benefits. Ghetoizing blacks caused a host of social and economic disadvantages to them.

So, the government rectified the situation by making it illegal for realtors to steer buyers based on race. Racial covenants were declared illegal and void. And individuals were sometimes subject to the same rules.

You may argue that this is someone's private property and he can do what he likes with it. Remember, though, that this person has received a benefit from the state. He owns the property only because the state allows him to. He is safe from invasion because the state protects him. And he received the protections of real estate and contract law when he purchased the property to begin with. When the individual volunteers to benefit from the community's laws, the individual should also be required to obey rules that let others get those same benefits.

As for contract law, it is not in question in this case. In general, a contract to sell real estate must be in writing to be enforceable. Verbal offer and acceptance will not create a contract to sell realty in most jurisdictions. However, in this case, contract law is not implicated. Only civil rights law is.

This is a crappy argument against segregation. The idea that properity rights are a prevlige from the goverment, means that you could also be compelled to sell only to persons or races that the goverment approves of. Think of Germany in the 1930's

 

[Jackalgirl]

Were not racists, your honor, just complete and utter morons. We backed out of an offer for 95% of our full asking price on a property that has been on the market for over two years, because we wanted the full asking price. Then we pulled the house off the market completely.

Honest, your honor, it had nothing to do with the buyer's race

PUH-LEASE

And then they relisted it, at the original asking price, later, in March of that year. Apparently, Mrs. Sabbia had gotten over the "reality" of selling the home.

Also what I don't get, is why didn't the realtor refuse to work with them if the seller said he didn't want to sell to blacks? If it was a wink and nod deal between them then why did he show the house to a black family?

He didn't; according to the complaint, it was another realtor, Arno Gerbrecht, "the agent that showed the Complaintants the subject property that day, in Respondant Lowe's absence" (here). Perhaps Lowe did not pass along his clients' buyer preferences to the other guy in the office?

(Note, I'm not saying that he should have. I'm saying that at least going by the HUD's complaint, this is pretty blantant [and wrong].)

Edited to add: I also thought it was particularly disgusting that after the HUD complaint was filed, and after the Sabbias were made aware of this, that they then offered to sell the house to the Willborns. At the original asking price. Granted, with all the furniture inside, but still. "Hey, we don't want to be charged with racism. So why don't you pay us more to make this all go away?"

 

[Hawk one]

There is a whole lot of misinformation in this thread about the law - both regarding civil rights and contracts.

To understand the civil rights law, we need to look at the situation that the law was created to correct. White people were voluntarily segregating themselves from blacks, creating white-only and black-only areas. Deeds frequently contained covenants that the property could not be sold to anyone who wasn't white. Realtors regularly steered buyers towards their corresponding racial neighborhoods. Black buyers weren't even shown houses in white areas, or were lied to about price or availability.

I should not be required to defend the idea that segregation is bad. Courts and legislatures were presented with evidence that predominently black areas received worse municipal services, police coverage, and other government benefits. Ghetoizing blacks caused a host of social and economic disadvantages to them.

So, the government rectified the situation by making it illegal for realtors to steer buyers based on race. Racial covenants were declared illegal and void. And individuals were sometimes subject to the same rules.

You may argue that this is someone's private property and he can do what he likes with it. Remember, though, that this person has received a benefit from the state. He owns the property only because the state allows him to. He is safe from invasion because the state protects him. And he received the protections of real estate and contract law when he purchased the property to begin with. When the individual volunteers to benefit from the community's laws, the individual should also be required to obey rules that let others get those same benefits.

As for contract law, it is not in question in this case. In general, a contract to sell real estate must be in writing to be enforceable. Verbal offer and acceptance will not create a contract to sell realty in most jurisdictions. However, in this case, contract law is not implicated. Only civil rights law is.

I love that bolded part in particular. Strangely enough, nobody's tried to argue against it, people just seem to ignore it and repeat their "personal freedom" mantras without considering the implications of this mantra...

 

[luchog]

This is a crappy argument against segregation. The idea that properity rights are a prevlige from the goverment,

Property is not a privilege, but it is not an ordinary right, either. Property is the most limited, finite, and least fungible resource available; and therefore is treated in a slightly different manner than other forms of property.

means that you could also be compelled to sell only to persons or races that the goverment approves of. Think of Germany in the 1930's

Which is why we have laws and Constitutional protections against that very thing happening.

 

[The Painter]

..., I hope the Feds aren't guaranteeing loans on houses costing over $1 million!

I'm sorry to tell you this, but they are!

The Federal Housing Administration agreed in March to insure mortgages for apartments at the 98-unit Gramercy Park development, known as Tempo. That enables buyers to make a down payment of as little as 3.5 percent in a building where apartments are listed at $820,000 to $3 million.

The FHA, created in 1934 to make homeownership attainable for low- to moderate-income Americans, is now providing a lifeline to new Manhattan luxury condominiums after sales stalled.

The agency’s backing of luxury condos “doesn’t look good,” said Andrew Caplin, a professor of economics at New York University who co-wrote a paper titled “Reassessing FHA Risk.”
“Manhattan wealthy people -- is this really who the FHA was set up to support?” he said in an interview.

Another example of government out of control. Another bailout for the rich.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...e-federal-help-in-game-changer-for-sales.html

 

[linusrichard]

[Real p]roperty is not a privilege, but it is not an ordinary right, either. [Real p]roperty is the most limited, finite, and least fungible resource available; and therefore is treated in a slightly different manner than other forms of property.

I think that's what you meant. Otherwise your second sentence is v. confusing.

 

[luchog]

I think that's what you meant. Otherwise your second sentence is v. confusing.

Sorry, I mistakenly thought that everyone would read it in context.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but they are!








Another example of government out of control. Another bailout for the rich.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...e-federal-help-in-game-changer-for-sales.html

 

[Alt+F4]

Another example of government out of control. Another bailout for the rich.

Hardly. Anyone who needs an FHA loan to buy a luxury condo is not wealthy, just stupid.

And by the way, you are totally wrong. The funding for FHA is entirely self-generated so it costs taxpayers nothing. The PMI paid by the borrowers is what is pays for the entire program.

http://www.myfhahomeloan.com/About-the-FHA.html

 

[The Painter]

Hardly. Anyone who needs an FHA loan to buy a luxury condo is not wealthy, just stupid.

And by the way, you are totally wrong. The funding for FHA is entirely self-generated so it costs taxpayers nothing. The PMI paid by the borrowers is what is pays for the entire program.

http://www.myfhahomeloan.com/About-the-FHA.html

So you start by saying people who need FHA are stupid, nice. Then you say I'm "totally wrong". Well if I'm wrong than the entire staff at bloomberg.com is also wrong. I didn't know that you know more than they do. Maybe they should have gone to you first. That way they wouldn't have written a article that is "totally wrong" .........according to you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you start by saying people who need FHA are stupid, nice.

No, he said that people who use FHA to buy LUXURY condos are stupid.

 

[Alt+F4]

So you start by saying people who need FHA are stupid, nice. Then you say I'm "totally wrong". Well if I'm wrong than the entire staff at bloomberg.com is also wrong. I didn't know that you know more than they do. Maybe they should have gone to you first. That way they wouldn't have written a article that is "totally wrong" .........according to you.

I didn't say that bloomberg is totally wrong, I said you were totally wrong. You stated that FHA loans were an example of government out of control (wrong) and that they are a bailout for the rich (wrong). Where in the article you posted did it say FHA loans were an example of government out of control or a bailout for the rich?

And yes, anyone that buys a luxury (expensive) condo with an FHA loan is stupid (and not rich).

 

[Loss Leader]

This is a crappy argument against segregation. The idea that properity rights are a prevlige from the goverment, means that you could also be compelled to sell only to persons or races that the goverment approves of. Think of Germany in the 1930's

That was hardly my only argument against segregation. I believe my argument was that segregation is wrong. The fact that property rights derive from the social contract (in the form of a consensual government) is only the engine through which segregation is undone. It's not an argument in and of itself.

I didn't think I needed to elaborate on the fact that the only just laws are ones created through a democratic process founded on broad consensus throughout all strata of society. Thus, while the Nuremberg Laws were nominally created by a government which (for the sake of argument) represented the majority of Germans, they were unjust and would not meet the minimum tests of my argument.

Godwin noted. I will endeavor in the future to speak in full paragraphs with long disclaimers that exclude whatever the Nazis did.

 

[332nd]

Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make! *buzzer* The Race card is maxxed out.

How's the hate America card doin?

 

[MontagK505]

That was hardly my only argument against segregation. I believe my argument was that segregation is wrong. The fact that property rights derive from the social contract (in the form of a consensual government) is only the engine through which segregation is undone. It's not an argument in and of itself.

I didn't think I needed to elaborate on the fact that the only just laws are ones created through a democratic process founded on broad consensus throughout all strata of society. Thus, while the Nuremberg Laws were nominally created by a government which (for the sake of argument) represented the majority of Germans, they were unjust and would not meet the minimum tests of my argument.

Godwin noted. I will endeavor in the future to speak in full paragraphs with long disclaimers that exclude whatever the Nazis did.

Sarcasm noted.

In your earlier post, you are correct. There are no constitutional (actual) property rights in the United States, only the privilege to own property that can be altered as the government sees fit. Legislation usually requires 50%+1 vote, hardy a consensus. Most abuses of Eminent Domain laws only require a simple majority. Even the 5th amendment add-on only vaguely describes the conditions required for the government to take your property.

I still think this is a bad foundation to rest the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Loss Leader]

Legislation usually requires 50%+1 vote, hardy a consensus. Most abuses of Eminent Domain laws only require a simple majority. Even the 5th amendment add-on only vaguely describes the conditions required for the government to take your property.

First of all, the 5th Amendment is vague because all of the possible situations where it could be applied are vague. However, legislation and case law has firmed up exactly what threshholds are required in many instances.

Second of all, you're still misunderstanding my argument. Certainly some legislative acts only need a simple majority. Judicial acts can be undertaken by as few as one person. However, this changes nothing because the underlying foundation of the system is (usually) just. The agreement to abide by legislation - indeed, to form a nation at all - was and is widely subscribed to. The manner in which laws are made allows for accountability. And fundamental rights of all people are protected.

When these things are untrue - such as under segregation - the system is unjust. It either corrects itself or people die.

People may agree to live by individual laws they don't like, but only because they still trust that the aggregate effect of the laws will be fairness.

I still think this is a bad foundation to rest the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

Since its not the foundation on which I rested anything, I neither agree nor disagree with you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to make! *buzzer* The Race card is maxxed out.

I can't read most blogs from work. Could you just make your own statement.

You were asked if you were considering an inability to take care of a dog through inexperience or possibly evidence of ill treatment of other pets(giving you a little leeway here) as the equivalent statement to an assumption that blacks wouldn't know how to take care of an expensive property.

First of all, you've never been in the deep south, I take it. Blacks have been taking care of all the best properties for a couple of hundred years.

Second of all, as I said, ... could you clarify that one more time. Trane asked if you'd actually considered your response because you seemed to be saying that blacks were incapable of taking care of a high-end property and comparing that thought process to deciding when someone wasn't capable of taking care of a dog you wanted to sell. Now, assuming you'd have to have some form of evidence that led you to the determination that said person was going to maltreat or abuse his dog, the question was "just what, other than their blackness, leads you to believe the black person is incapable of taking care of your precious property?"

Frankly, the I'm-so-tired-of-the-race-card argument is getting far more overplayed than the race card ever did. It's now used as justification for all sorts of blatantly racist actions.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Frankly, the I'm-so-tired-of-the-race-card argument is getting far more overplayed than the race card ever did.

Apparently you've never heard of a gentleman by the name of Al Sharpton.