The latest from John Anthony at Property Value Defense…<\/p>\n
HUD\u2019s Rickety World of Worthless Words<\/strong> Officials are rightly worried. HUD\u2019s own documents show<\/a> the agency has markedly increased their legal actions against grant recipients. <\/p>\n But, according to the Ninth Circuit Court, assurances from federal agency representatives may not be worth much:<\/p>\n In 1999, Big Meadows Grazing of Flathead County, Montana entered into a conservation easement with the US. Department of Agriculture. Prior to signing the contract, agency representatives assured Big Meadows that both parties would participate in restoration activities on the \u201ceased\u201d land. They estimated a needed riparian fix would cost $80,000. The government even provided a \u201cmanual\u201d outlining the intended work and relationship.<\/p>\n Several months later, over Big Meadows\u2019 objections, the government completed a massively larger \u201cfix\u201d than discussed, and billed the grazing association for $486,000. Outraged at what they considered deception, Big Meadows sued the government<\/a>.<\/p>\n The results were devastating.<\/p>\n The court decided that \u201cthe Manual cannot bind the government because it… [was not] promulgated according to the Administrative Procedure Act.\u201d As for the assurances of cooperation from government representatives, the court was blunt, “We will not review allegations of noncompliance with an agency statement that is not binding on the agency.”<\/p>\n Assurances, written notes and even manuals offered by federal representatives, unless they are in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act<\/a>, which includes entry into the Federal Register, are nothing more than non-binding words.<\/p>\n As Big Meadows learned, those words can be costly.<\/p>\n Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is a binding rule<\/a> with the force of law. It relies on grassroots civic groups and legal advocates<\/a> to compel local communities to bend their zoning laws to the government\u2019s will.<\/p>\n Worse, as Douglas County, CO discovered, HUD\u2019s legal requirements are a moving target<\/a>, hard to define and harder to hit.<\/p>\n No matter what your HUD representative says, in a court of law, it is the contract that matters.<\/p>\n If HUD Says This, Call Your Attorney<\/strong><\/p>\n HUD representatives offer grantee communities much AFFH advice. Some is valuable and others misleading. Here are the two most frequently cited remarks our members have shared regarding HUD advice, and PVD\u2019s response.<\/p>\n HUD comment: PVD response: To suggest that your community can accept CDBG grants that fall under AFFH with little concern because it is unique is misleading.<\/p>\n HUD comment: PVD response: In addition, AFFH requires that instead of refraining from discrimination in housing as in the past, fund recipients must now work to end it by taking steps that go far beyond the construction of affordable housing.<\/p>\n Finally, HUD\u2019s new expansive interpretation of the Fair Housing Act allows the agency to oversee community economic diversity, classroom socioeconomic diversity, encourage planned communities<\/a> to foster upward mobility for low-income families and involve the Department of Transportation<\/a> to assist in reducing poverty by \u201cestablishing access points for opportunity and mobility.\u201d<\/p>\n Using AFFH as a platform, HUD has expanded affordable housing into large scale social engineering.<\/p>\n Stay informed and stay in control,
\nWhen public officials first learn how HUD\u2019s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule can force communities to overturn voters\u2019 decisions and ignore their own zoning laws, often their first comment is, \u201cLet\u2019s check with HUD. We can\u2019t afford to lose the grant money.\u201d <\/p>\n
\n\u201cOur HUD representative told us we did not have to worry about our Community Development Block Grant funds under AFFH, because our community has a much different situation than Westchester County.\u201d (Westchester was the first county sued under the False Claims Act for failure to affirmatively further fair housing. It became the basis for HUD\u2019s new litigious direction.)<\/em><\/p>\n
\nEvery jurisdiction that has faced HUD actions from compliance reviews to lawsuit intervention is unique. Westchester County, Marin County, Rockford, IL, Dubuque IA, among many others are each different situations resulting in various legal actions based on the False Claims Act, supposed civil rights violations and Disparate Impact issues.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cAFFH should not be a large concern because your community is already in compliance.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\nThere is little way for HUD to know if you are in compliance until you complete the new Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Even then, according to the Federal Register, HUD\u2019s acceptance of an AFH \u201cdoes not mean that HUD has determined that a jurisdiction has complied with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing under the Fair Housing Act; has complied with other provisions of the Act; or has complied with other civil rights laws, regulations or guidance.\u201d \u00a75.162(a)(2)<\/p>\n
\nJohn Anthony, Founder
\nSustainable Freedom Lab and Property Value Defense <\/p>\n