Second Quiz - Pres. Obama’s 2015 HUD Rule Aimed At Suburbs

[johnkarls]

.
Second Short Quiz - Pres. Obama’s 2015 HUD Rule Aimed At The Suburbs

A. INTRODUCTION

A-1. Did our focus book fail to offer any “silver bullet” recommendations because Prof. Jackson claimed that “making dramatic changes in people’s networks is likely a losing battle” – pointing out that “large-scale social engineering has a history of disasters” and offering only a handful of modest suggestions?

A-2. Did Q&A-19 of the First Short Quiz “respectfully suggest” that there are at least two ways of making dramatic changes in people’s networks and comparing them would be the subject of this “Second Short Quiz” --

(1) Our 6/3/2020 Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign entitled “Addressing the Cause of Racism (vs. a Mere Symptom)” which called for educating the children of America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste in “magnet schools” whose excellence in terms of faculty, programs, facilities, etc., would cause affluent parents to want their children to attend even though their admittance and continued enrollment would be conditioned on the affluent parents and their child tutoring and mentoring a classmate from America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste. Details are available at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1925&sid=a2dea04e4 ... 6a61eacfd9.

(2) President Obama’s 7/16/2015 HUD Regulation which appeared to be aimed at forcing suburbs to construct “affordable housing” (aka “low-income housing”). It was repealed by the Trump Administration on 8/7/2020.


B. OUR 6/3/2020 E-MAIL CAMPAIGN FOR FEDERAL “MAGNET SCHOOLS”

B-1. Was our proposal modelled on a PRIVATELY-FUNDED “magnet school” program that would have served 10 million inner-city children if A SINGLE ONE OF THE 21 top governmental officials starting with President Obama and 43 news-media superstars had been willing to “lift a single finger” vis-à-vis a lawsuit against 15 of the world’s largest financial institutions for which the “question presented for review” in the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the appeal was –

“Can state court judges order their decisions which they know are diametrically-opposed to well-settled law, not to be published or cited (a strategy labeled ‘the segregated toilet’ in correspondence with 51 inner-city clergy who represent the 10 million inner-city children who have been disclosed from the outset as the ‘real parties at interest’ in this law suit) in order to flush away the rights of the 10 million inner-city children without disturbing the rights of first-class American citizens -- without violating the ‘Equal Protection of the Law’ requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”

B-2. Was the TO-BE-PRIVATELY-FUNDED “magnet school” program to be part of the “I Have A Dream”® Foundation?

B-3. Are “magnet schools” designed to have such superior faculty, programs, facilities, etc., etc., that suburban parents will still want their children to attend even though there is a high percentage of inner-city children?

B-4. Indeed, did our 6/3/2020 e-mail campaign make the point that if it were implemented at the university level, Harvard could probably push well past the 50%-minority level which is usually the barrier beyond which affluent parents typically lose interest – with affluent parents still clamoring to have Harvard admit their children despite a MAJORITY of its student body being African-American children?

B-5. Did the “I Have A Dream”® Foundation oversee in the 1990’s 178 programs in 51 American cities, each of which programs adopted an entire third-grade class of an inner-city school (or third-grade cohort in a public-housing project), providing each child with a tutor and a mentor through high school graduation with a guarantee of college tuition?

B-6. Once it was realized that the tutors and mentors had become de facto surrogate parents who could inspire the Dreamers to take advantage of their opportunity, were those IHAD programs in the 1990’s typically able to achieve 90% H.S. graduation - college matriculation rates despite the class just ahead and the class just behind each Dreamer class typically experiencing SINGLE-DIGIT high-school graduation rates?

B-7. Did the U.S. Supreme Court refuse on 10/4/2011 to accept the appeal described in Question B-1 because the 21 top governmental officials starting with President Obama refused three requests to file amicus curiae briefs and 43 news media superstars refused three requests to “shine a light” on what was going down – when each of the governmental officials and news media superstars knew that any one of them “lifting a single finger” might have been sufficient to save the 10 million inner-city children from “a fate worse than death”???

B-8. Accordingly, did our 6/3/2020 e-mail campaign to the two presidential candidates (details at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1925&sid=73d4116e2 ... eef76c4c2b) request each to support the creation of Federal Magnet Schools to serve each of the children of America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste? Did we recommend that the admission and continued enrollment by a child of affluent parents be conditioned upon the affluent parents and their child mentoring and tutoring a classmate from America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste? Did we recognize that to accommodate all of the children of America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste, the Federal Magnet Schools would have to serve 60% of America’s entire K-12 student population?


C. PRES. OBAMA’S 2015 HUD RULE AIMED AT THE SUBURBS

[The 101-page Adobe.pdf file containing the text of the 2015 HUD Rule is available via the internet from the U.S. government’s Federal Register
at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... -17032.pdf.]

C-1. Does the first paragraph of the HUD Rule text say that the Fair Housing Act “in conjunction with other statutes, directs HUD's program participants to take significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination”?

C-2. Does the first paragraph of “The Executive Summary” (also located on the first page of the HUD rule text) say that the legislation “provided, through the duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), for meaningful actions to be taken to overcome the legacy of segregation, unequal treatment, and historic lack of access to opportunity in housing” but HUD had theretofore only required participants in HUD programs to undertake an analysis of impediments to fair housing that was generally not submitted to or reviewed by HUD?

C-3. Did the new 2015 HUD Rule (quoting from the Summary of Major Provisions of the Rule on the second page of the HUD rule text) –

a. Replace the AI with a more effective and standardized Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) through which program participants identify and evaluate fair housing issues, and factors contributing to fair housing issues (contributing factors);

b. Improve fair housing assessment, planning, and decisionmaking by HUD providing data that program participants must consider in their assessments of fair housing—designed to aid program participants in establishing fair housing goals to address these issues and contributing factors;

c. Incorporate, explicitly, fair housing planning into existing planning processes, the consolidated plan and PHA Plan, which, in turn, incorporate fair housing priorities and goals more effectively into housing, and community development decisionmaking;

d. Encourage and facilitate regional approaches to address fair housing issues, including collaboration across jurisdictions and PHAs; and

e. Provide an opportunity for the public, including individuals historically excluded because of characteristics protected by the Fair Housing Act, to provide input about fair housing issues, goals, priorities, and the most appropriate uses of HUD funds and other investments, through a requirement to conduct community participation as an integral part of the new assessment of fair housing process.

Following which the Summary explained -

“This new approach is designed to empower program participants and to foster the diversity and strength of communities by overcoming historic patterns of segregation, reducing racial or ethnic concentrations of poverty, and responding to identified disproportionate housing needs consistent with the policies and protections of the Fair Housing Act. The rule also seeks to assist program participants in reducing disparities in housing choice and access to housing and opportunity based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability, thereby expanding economic opportunity and enhancing the quality of life.”


C-4. Did the 2015 HUD Regulations require in Sec. 5.162 (entitled “Review of AFH” – aka “Review of Assessment of Fair Housing”) – which appears on page 88 of the 101-page Adobe.pdf copy of the text of the regulations available for download just before Question C-1 – that the plan must be approved by HUD or the jurisdiction will not be permitted to participate in HUD programs?

C-5. Does Sec. 5.162 also provide that jurisdictions will not be permitted to participate in HUD programs if, at any point thereafter, they fail to comply with their plans that were approved by HUD?

C-6. Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac HUD programs that buy mortgages on the secondary market, pool them and sell them as “mortgage-backed securities” to investors on the open market? Are virtually all mortgages bundled into mortgaged-backed securities by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?

C-7. Would any suburb be able to survive (except perhaps a suburb occupied solely by billionaires who can pay cash for their mansions) without Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac bundling of its mortgages into “mortgage-backed securities”?

C-8. Is deprivation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support one of the penalties that a suburb refusing to comply with the 2015 HUD Regulation would have experienced if the regulation had not been revoked on 8/7/2020?


D. THE “CARROT” OF OUR PROPOSAL AND THE “STICK” OF PRES. OBAMA’S HUD RULE

D-1. Did our proposal comprise a “carrot” that would entice affluent parents to have their children attend school with children of America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste?

D-2. Was our proposal DESIGNED FOR SUCCESS because each child of America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste would be tutored and mentored by a classmate of affluent parents and those parents?

D-3. Did Pres. Obama’s approach comprise a proverbial “stick”? Perhaps even a “cudgel”?

D-4. Was Pres. Obama’s approach even designed to provide the children of America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste with a decent education?

D-5. Even if Pres. Obama’s approach forced a jurisdiction to build low-income housing, was there anything in Pres. Obama’s program that would have even resulted in children of America’s 30% Permanent Under-Caste attending the same schools as children of their affluent neighbors?

D-6. What is “tracking”? What is “special education”?

D-7. Even if every child living in a jurisdiction’s low-income housing projects did go to school in the same building as children of their affluent neighbors, what is to say that the children from the low-income housing projects would NOT all be “tracked” by isolating them in “special ed” classes?

D-8. Why do you think Pres. Obama appeared to want to use a stick/cudgel approach apparently designed to cause hate and discontent? And designed to bring about so little success, if any?

D-9. Why do you think Pres. Obama opposed PRIVATE FUNDING for saving 10 million inner-city children from “a fate worse than death”?