“That practice makes dwellings unavailable in particular areas…”
What, you mean areas where people own their homes, take pride of ownership, take care of their neighborhoods, don’t throw trash in the street, and where businesses can actually operate without constant fear of robbery? Gee, can’t imagine why people in those areas would be opposed to Section 8 housing developments.
Just look at north Arlington TX for an example. A handful of really rotten section 8 apartment complexes brought down the whole area and the schools with it.
Disparate impact is a political concept. If I have an apartment for rent and market rate is $1500, can someone claim disparate impact because minorities in the area can generally only afford $1000 a month? Should someone be able to claim disparate impact if they can’t afford to buy a house in a wealthy area? There’s a real difference between not renting or selling to someone because they are a minority and not renting or selling to someone who can’t afford the going price.
Just to clarify what disparate impact law means (neither the author nor commenters understand), it does not base liability only on showing that the defendant’s policy has a negative impact on minorities. The defendant still wins if they show the policy is justified based on legitimate business needs, even if it does have a disparate impact. Businesses are entitled to have policies that result in some people not affording their product (i.e. housing, insurance, etc.), they just can’t use unfair screening devices, etc. that aren’t related to legitimate business concerns. Ability to pay, for example, is a legitimate business concern. You should get the facts right before opining (or writing articles)…
“That practice makes dwellings unavailable in particular areas…”
What, you mean areas where people own their homes, take pride of ownership, take care of their neighborhoods, don’t throw trash in the street, and where businesses can actually operate without constant fear of robbery? Gee, can’t imagine why people in those areas would be opposed to Section 8 housing developments.
Just look at north Arlington TX for an example. A handful of really rotten section 8 apartment complexes brought down the whole area and the schools with it.
Disparate impact is a political concept. If I have an apartment for rent and market rate is $1500, can someone claim disparate impact because minorities in the area can generally only afford $1000 a month? Should someone be able to claim disparate impact if they can’t afford to buy a house in a wealthy area? There’s a real difference between not renting or selling to someone because they are a minority and not renting or selling to someone who can’t afford the going price.
Just to clarify what disparate impact law means (neither the author nor commenters understand), it does not base liability only on showing that the defendant’s policy has a negative impact on minorities. The defendant still wins if they show the policy is justified based on legitimate business needs, even if it does have a disparate impact. Businesses are entitled to have policies that result in some people not affording their product (i.e. housing, insurance, etc.), they just can’t use unfair screening devices, etc. that aren’t related to legitimate business concerns. Ability to pay, for example, is a legitimate business concern. You should get the facts right before opining (or writing articles)…