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

[Mumbles]

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.

There were other problems besides municipal discrimination. Black sections were often wildly overpopulated, often leading to catastrophic fires, high crime, high disease, and so forth. Also, because banks arbitrarily declared black sections "high-risk", and refused to provide mortgages to them, black homebuyers had no choice but to turn to contract sellers, who woulds often charge grossly inflated prices and interest rates, and then tack on needless or false charges in order to force the home buyers into default. And since contract buyers did not have the protection that mortgagers did, a single missed payment was considered enough to be in default, and to forfeit all payments and rights to the house. The contractors also, generally, neglected any upkeep for the home they technically owned, which eventually lead to widespread squalor, as well as the deadly fires and disasters I mentioned above. Oddly, these contractors would usually buy the property they contracted out using loans from the same banks that declared black neighborhoods "high-risk". In addition, many businesses relocated their factories, warehouses, and the like into "whites-only" neighborhoods, and many people acted to prevent black people from entering these neighborhoods, which helped to create widespread unemployment among urban black people.

If you're interested in this, feel free to read books like "Crabgrass Frontier" by Kenneth Jackson, "The Origins of the Urban Crisis" by Thomas Segrue, and especially "Family Properties" by Beryl Satter. But the basic story is, we tried letting homeowners discriminate freely, and the end result was a complete disaster. The individual homebuyer's right to discriminate is outweighed by the greater good of not creating crime-ridden, overcrowded, and deadly ghettoes for black people.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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

Why would that be "apparent"? I've actually met him. He's a horse's p'toot, a political hack, and fairly obvious to me, a liar.

The fact that one black opportunist uses the race card, however, is not proof that it's overplayed. And for every quote you show me of Sharpton playing the race card, I will trump you with three bigots using the "Oh no, not the race card, again" argument to cover up for their bigotry.

Wanna set a time limit and number of points? Let's say a thousand US Dollars contributed to the JREF by the loser. First to 100 wins. (Conjurer's warning: This would be like playing Blackjack with Randi. I waited thirteen hours to post this so I've already got 99 ready. )

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

...to a black couple.

Couple charged with refusing to sell home to black buyers


What confuses me about this, even beyond the racist ignorance, is how anyone can be subject to civil penalties for electing not to sell something they own, for any reason. Isn't it their property? They should be able to sell it, keep it, or tear it down if they want, for any reason they want.

Something isn't adding up here, or it has been reported incorrectly:

The home was listed for sale for $1.799 million and had been for sale for almost two years when the Willborns toured it in early January, according to the complaint filed with HUD's office of administrative law judges. The couple made a $1.5 million offer for the home that day and after two days of negotiation, the Willborn's accepted the $1.7 million counteroffer from the Sabbias.

The Willborn's made an offer ($1.5 million) which was less than the listed price ($1.799 million). The Sabian's could have rejected it. Game over. However, they (Sabian's) countered at $1.7 million. The Willborn's accepted. Congratulations - you (Sabian's) have just sold your house, whether you like it or not.

Disclosure: I used to be a licensed real estate broker in the state of Missouri.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

eta: the FHA has exemptions. I can discriminate any way I choose when renting my apartment upstairs, because my building has less than 6 (maybe 4, I forget where the cutoff is) units and I live in it. I couldn't do that,however, if I hired a professional to lease my apartment for me.

It's 4 in the state of Missouri, IIRC.

ETA: The more I think about it, maybe it is 6. I can't remember, it's been about 12 years.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if the $1.7 mil "counter offer" documentation consists of crossing out the $1.5 mil in the original offer and handwriting in $1.7 mil instead, but that means the rest of the offer details are still in play. Things like earnest money, proposed closing date, and conditions upon which the agreement can be voided (pending an acceptable home inspection, for example, and securing funding (although some sellers might refuse the offer on that basis and prefer a pre-approved buyer)), etc.

This is correct - the original amount would have been crossed out and the sellers would have initialed it or signed a separate addendum. I know of no competent real estate agent who would convey such a thing verbally.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I find it unlikely that the $1.7 million counteroffer is signed by the seller.

I find it likely that it was, otherwise there wouldn't have been a counter-offer. See my response above.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Really, contract law seems to be 100% not relevant as far as this story is concerned, so far as we can tell from the article.

I really don't see why there are more posts about the contract aspect than the racial aspect, which is what HUD is whining about.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Really, contract law seems to be 100% not relevant as far as this story is concerned, so far as we can tell from the article.

I really don't see why there are more posts about the contract aspect than the racial aspect, which is what HUD is whining about.

Not relevant mostly because the Willborn's chose not to pursue it.

 

[Loss Leader]

The Willborn's made an offer ($1.5 million) which was less than the listed price ($1.799 million). The Sabian's could have rejected it. Game over. However, they (Sabian's) countered at $1.7 million. The Willborn's accepted. Congratulations - you (Sabian's) have just sold your house, whether you like it or not.

Disclosure: I used to be a licensed real estate broker in the state of Missouri.

This isn't true in New York, but we don't tend to use written offers (or counteroffers) from sellers here. Until the lawyers produce full written contracts signed by both parties, there is generally no deal. In fact, real estate agents won't send written acceptances specifically to avoid creating enforceable contracts.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This isn't true in New York, but we don't tend to use written offers (or counteroffers) from sellers here. Until the lawyers produce full written contracts signed by both parties, there is generally no deal. In fact, real estate agents won't send written acceptances specifically to avoid creating enforceable contracts.

Interesting. I wonder if the law has changed in Missouri? Like I said, it's been 12 years since my brokers license expired, and closer to 18-20 since I sat for the exam.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Not relevant mostly because the Willborn's chose not to pursue it.

Thank you for stipuating that it's not relevant. We should probably stop talking about it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So you are an anarchist?

I don't know how big a rocket it would take to successfully make that leap, but I know it hasn't been conceived of by Man yet.

What circle?

The one where you said your opinion should be the law because your opinion should be the law.

If you're implying I'm presenting a circular argument, you're absolutely wrong. It's a value judgement. I believe discrimination based on race should be illegal in all-but-personal choices.

And I don't see where you get the authority to tell anyone how to conduct their affairs, regarldess of whether it's business or personal.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

[Shrug.] Well, then you're wrong.

The hell? Did you creep inside my head and somehow determine I wasn't telling the truth? What's next, if I tell you I think blue is the best color you'll tell me I'm wrong then, too?

Ask any lawyer if you want a more authoritative "you're wrong."

I don't see what relevance a lawyer has in relation to my beliefs regarding the extent of personal liberty.

In this case, the government has said you have no right to discriminate in business transactions on the basis of race and has said specifically that you have no right to discriminate on the basis of race when selling or buying a house.

Overactive government has been an issue since the beginning of government.

If that bothers you, phone your Congressman.

If I thought it would have any effect, I would. But it still has no bearing on what I believe.

Or even if you state your reasons, as long as they're not racially based.

I had a situation like that when I sold my house a couple of months ago. Several interested buyers, and I hate haggling. So I told my agent at lunchtime "here's my best-and-final offer, firm. First "yes" gets the house."

I had my first "yes" at 4pm. My second "yes" at 7pm. I neither know nor care what race the second buyer was; his bid was rejected not due to race, but due to (lack of) timelines.

Which makes me wonder if two people with the same income, background, job, etc. made the same offer on a house, would it still be illegal to give it to the white guy because you "jus' don' like dem coloreds". A decision has to be made, so why should a coin flip be any more legal than skin color?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And I don't see where you get the authority to tell anyone how to conduct their affairs, regarldess of whether it's business or personal.

I don't have any authority. However, I do believe it is wrong to discriminate based on race. For some reason, I think there are laws about that as well. Hmmm.

 

[Loss Leader]

why should a coin flip be any more legal than skin color?

Because a coin flip hasn't been the driving force behind hundreds of years of economic discrimination that included slavery, denial of government services, denial of due process and fundamental access to justice, and economic marginalization.

Skin color has.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Thank you for stipuating that it's not relevant. We should probably stop talking about it.

No. We will continue.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No. We will continue.

Why, if even you admit it's off-topic?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why, if even you admit it's off-topic?

Because I choose to.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I don't have any authority. However, I do believe it is wrong to discriminate based on race.

So... you want to foist your opinion on others by force of law, even though you admit you have no authority to do so.

Hmm.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Because a coin flip hasn't been the driving force behind hundreds of years of economic discrimination that included slavery, denial of government services, denial of due process and fundamental access to justice, and economic marginalization.

Skin color has.

And why should the action perpetrated by governments in the past constrain the activities or private individuals with respect to their private property now?