The Housing Authority of Baltimore City is secretly relocating Section 8 subsidized housing families from the inner city into suburban homes – and some critics are charging it is part of a plan to deliberately cause damage to the communities there.
“They’re going to be destroying every suburb that they move into, just as they’ve done the inner cities,” said Jesse Lee Peterson. “This is ‘forced diversity.'”
The “forced diversity” to which Peterson objects has been pursued by the Obama administration in several ways, from new regulations putting the federal government’s thumb on the pulse of local zoning actions to immigrant programs that have dumped illegal aliens, both from south of the border as well as the Middle East, into American cities without so much as a notification to the local governor or mayor.
Critics have cited it as a goal of socialist-minded and left-leaning interests who want to assure themselves of power in the federal government for the foreseeable future through the electoral process. The inner cities, with their heavily government-dependent populations, already reliably vote Democrat. Critics charge that moving large numbers of dependent populations into suburbs and other areas is intended to change the voting nature of those populations.
In the Baltimore situation, local officials in Baltimore County complain they were not even notified when suburban homes in their districts were purchased and repurposed as city public housing.
According to the Baltimore Sun, $12 million has been spent to purchase housing in communities surrounding Baltimore, and more than $50 million has been spent to pay the rent of Baltimore residents who are being moved into pricey suburban neighborhoods.
As reported by WND, new regulations imposed by the Obama administration in July 2013 dramatically increased Washington’s power over local zoning laws, allowing the federal government to force communities to provide more “affordable housing” in exchange for grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Under the theory of “disparate impact,” communities could be sued if their zoning laws are seen to be insufficiently supportive of those who fall under HUD’s protected statuses based on race, religion or national origin.
The new rules were widely interpreted as yet another way for the Obama administration to insert race into policy discussions.
Reports last summer detailed how the Obama administration is building a “race database” by collecting personal information on American citizens so as to achieve “racial and economic justice.”
The June 25, 2015, Supreme Court decision in the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc. also allowed claims of “disparate impact” to be used as part of an effort to relocate “affordable housing” in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods.
The efforts in Baltimore are being driven by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which won a decision in the case Thompson v. Department of Housing and Urban Development. That decision mandated HUD undertake a “regional approach” to desegregating public housing.
An ACLU official quoted in the Baltimore Sun admitted those involved in the resettlement effort are trying to avoid attention in order to avoid opposition.
In an editorial applauding the effort and comparing opponents disparagingly to Donald Trump, the Sun gloated that the purchases of suburban homes “were made through a nonprofit contractor to avoid… racially tinged alarmism.”
“The Obama administration is now redistributing poor inner city families to American suburbs,” Peterson said. “They’re taking black mothers and children from the ghettos, from the projects, and implanting them in white suburban communities around the country. And you aren’t supposed to know about it. Just like we don’t know what they did with those illegal alien children that came across the borders, and they put them into communities in the wee hours of the night, and no one knows where they are, who they are, or what they’re doing. Now they’re doing this with black, out of wedlock children and mothers.”
Peterson said the reason suburban communities are seen as “nice” and with “decent schools” is because “you have fathers and mothers together” with positive values who built and sustain them. For his part, Peterson has founded a nonprofit called the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny focused on rebuilding the black family. He argues without moral and spiritual change, HUD is simply subsidizing and spreading dysfunction around the country rather than actually helping anyone.
“Barack Obama is trying to solve a spiritual problem by means of a physical solution,” he said. “And that’s not going to work folks. Black Americans are suffering not because of white people discriminating against them based on color, they are suffering due to the lack of moral character and the lack of self-control.
“This idea of taking the power away from white people by passing these type of laws and then forcing it on them is evil and is not going to turn out for the good.”
Colin Flaherty, a reporter who has chronicled black violence against white people nationwide in “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It,” says HUD’s solution to “dilute” poverty makes sense on the surface. However, he says experience has taught him all it will do is ruin formerly prosperously neighborhoods.
It will begin, Flaherty warns, in the schools.
“Children from Section 8 housing don’t just overload schools, they overload schools with children with less interest in learning,” Flaherty said. “Less interest in behaving in class rooms. Less interest in listening to teachers. And greater tendencies for violence, drugs and defiance.
“This is not theory. This is the experience of every neighborhood that has suffered Section 8 housing being inserted into their community.”
He cited the Antioch, California, experience where new Section 8 housing strained the social fabric and created racial tensions that ended up being covered by the national media.
Jack Cashill, a WND columnist, shared his own experience with Section 8 housing.
“At the beginning of my career I worked at a high level in public housing management in both Newark and Kansas City,” he recounted. “From the onset of the program, I warned about the dangers of Section 8 housing. It removed troubled families from supervision. It encourages people to cheat and most do. And it discourages marriage.”
The author of “Scarlet Letters: The Ever-Increasing Intolerance of the Cult of Liberalism,” argues Section 8 housing essentially subsidizes degeneracy and encourages the destruction of neighborhoods.
“Since rent is based on reported income, why keep the man of the house on the books?” Cashill asked rhetorically. “Not all Section 8 families are problematic, but many are, perhaps most. And an unmoored male, boyfriend or child, can ruin a block.”
Proponents of the program claim it is an effective away to help urban children to escape blight and poverty. But opponents counter what it actually does is make it impossible for those not dependent on government aid to live in a safe neighborhoods.
Peterson says the entire program will simply exacerbate the cultural problems already facing the black community. He argues claims of “racism” and segregation are simply convenient excuses.
“These blacks aren’t separated from whites because of ‘segregation,'” said Peterson. “They’re separated from whites because they’re having children out of wedlock, they’re reliant on the government to pay their rent, food, medical, everything, and so they lock themselves into these government sponsored neighborhoods.”
Cashill warns those who already live in suburban neighborhoods need to resist the program, otherwise they will lose their community. And as existing residents are forced to work for what Section 8 recipients receive for free, they will be trapped in a new crime ridden neighborhood.
“Neighbors have the right, indeed the obligation, to protest the willful sabotage of their community,” he concluded.
See Peterson’s comments:
While Peterson’s arguments focus on the damage Section 8 vouchers can present to established suburbs and smaller municipalities, others are equally concerned by the intentional political demographic shift that will occur in these areas, most notably by flooding more conservative suburbs and satellite communities with the urban poor, a demographic that consistently votes for Democrats.
In a 2015 article for WND, Aaron Klein described the increased use of Section 8 housing vouchers and other federal programs such as the Fair Housing Act by the Obama administration to “… integrate more minorities into townships across America, which could drastically impact local elections…”
The new rules require communities to have more in-depth plans for reducing the so-called concentration of poverty and “racial segregation.” These existing and new HUD regulations also require communities to provide an explanation for any imbalance of diversity patterns and to produce plans to reduce concentrations of poverty and “racial segregation.”
One well-known example of the result of the forced integration of low income urban minorities with a more traditional established community is Ferguson, Missouri, which gained national attention following the police shooting of Michael Brown in Aug. 9, 2014.
In 1970, 99 percent of the population of Ferguson was white and 1 percent black. By 2010, following the construction of numerous low income apartment complexes and the use of Section 8 vouchers and other government programs to acquire hundreds of foreclosed homes, the racial makeup of the city was 67.4 percent black and 29.3 percent white.
One census tract adjacent to the township had more Section 8 renters in 2013 than any tract in the entire state. From 2000 to 2010, the total population of Ferguson decreased from 22,593 to 21,203, with white flight accounting for nearly 4,000 of the decrease partially balanced by an increase of nearly 2,500 blacks.
During the same period, census data show marked change in likely political affiliation. In 2000, likely Democrat voters represented 24 percent of the voting aged population. By 2010, the likely Democrat voter category had risen to 91 percent.
Critics charge while recent headlines have heavily covered the potential political effects of both legal and illegal immigration, as well as the inevitable path to citizenship and the right to vote, the more stealthy use of governmental funds and regulation to facilitate moving the urban poor to smaller cities and towns like Ferguson will also have a major effect; not only on crime and economic conditions in these municipalities, but on the political flavor of small town America as well.
And those immigrant populations are not expected to be small either. The Obama administration’s position on illegal immigration sparked a surge of thousands of aliens from Mexico over the past two years, although many of the newcomers hail from Central America and they are using Mexico as a transit route.
Also, the federal government has insisted on relocating “refugees” from the Middle East in various low-population regions, including South Carolina and Idaho, often without even letting local officials know of the plan.