Obama’s Scheme To Destroy Middle Class Suburbia

suburbia

Pundits on both sides of the  aisle are finding Obama’s umpteenth pivot to the economy a rehash of stale policies that most likely won’t be enacted. But Stanley Kurtz argues that it’s not that the Regime is out of ideas – it’s that Obama’s boldest policy initiative is something he’d rather not discuss.

What if instead of  “fighting for the middle class”, as Obama pretends he’s doing, he’s currently enacting a scheme that will destroy middle class suburbia?

A year ago, Kurtz published Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities in which he described the president’s second-term plan to press a transformative “regionalist” agenda on the country.

Kurtz writes, “early but unmistakable signs indicate that Obama’s regionalist push is well underway.” And of course this is all very hush-hush. The president is not talking about it, nor is the MSM.

The most obvious new element of the president’s regionalist policy initiative is the July 19 publication of a Department of Housing and Urban Development regulation broadening the obligation of recipients of federal aid to “affirmatively further fair housing.” The apparent purpose of this rule change is to force suburban neighborhoods with no record of housing discrimination to build more public housing targeted to ethnic and racial minorities. Several administration critics noticed the change and challenged it, while the mainstream press has simply declined to cover the story.

Yet even critics have missed the real thrust of HUD’s revolutionary rule change. That’s understandable, since the Obama administration is at pains to downplay the regionalist philosophy behind its new directive. The truth is, HUD’s new rule is about a great deal more than forcing racial and ethnic diversity on the suburbs. (Regionalism, by the way, is actually highly controversial among minority groups. There are many ways in which both middle-class minorities in suburbs, and less well-off minorities in cities, can be hurt by regionalist policies–another reason those plans are seldom discussed.)

The new HUD rule is really about changing the way Americans live. It is part of a broader suite of initiatives designed to block suburban development, press Americans into hyper-dense cities, and force us out of our cars. Government-mandated ethnic and racial diversification plays a role in this scheme, yet the broader goal is forced “economic integration.” The ultimate vision is to make all neighborhoods more or less alike, turning traditional cities into ultra-dense Manhattans, while making suburbs look more like cities do now. In this centrally-planned utopia, steadily increasing numbers will live cheek-by-jowl in “stack and pack” high-rises close to public transportation, while automobiles fall into relative disuse.

Kurtz goes on to describe the San Francisco “Plan Bay Area,” a region-wide blueprint designed to control development in the nine-county, 101-town region around San Francisco.

He says that the Obama administration’s goal is “to use legal and financial carrots and sticks to press Plan Bay Area clones on regions across the country through its federally-funded Regional Planning Grant program.”

The new HUD rule will be folded into this broader strategy. (I lay out the structure, philosophy, and history of that strategy in Spreading the Wealth.)

When Secretary Donovan announced the sweeping new HUD rule, he said: “Make no mistake: this is a big deal.” He’s right. Yet the mainstream press has ignored the change, as well as the broader story behind it. Recognizing the politically explosive nature of its regionalist plans, the Obama administration does little to connect the dots for the public at large. Above all, the president himself avoids this issue, although it’s deeply embedded in his administration’s policies.

Obama isn’t actually out of bold ideas. They’re simply too controversial for him to discuss. The time has come for a national debate on the Obama administration’s regionalist policies.

Then again, Obama’s goal may be nothing more than an effort to move Democrat voters into conservative areas. Because when it’s all said and done – what is it that motivates this president and his fellow travelers in congress more than anything else?

Raw power?

Policies initiated by Democrats are intended first and foremost to cement the place and power of Democrats in the American polity. As I pointed out awhile back, all the post-election talk about what Obama’s second agenda would be (energy? jobs? foreign policy? and so on) was meaningless since there would be one and only one second-term agenda for this president:

There is nothing that will sidetrack him and the rest of the party from this goal. Increasing unemployment won’t, nor North Korean nuclear tests, nor a weakening dollar, nor anything else.

… to eliminate political and economic competition to himself first and the Democrat party second. There is no other Obama agenda. Not jobs, not economic growth, not anything. Emplacing permanent one-party rule in this country is the sole goal for term 2.

That is what he is really doing, very energetically, while we grow tired of paying attention to him.

Linked by Doug Ross, and Legal Insurrection, thanks.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Obama’s Scheme To Destroy Middle Class Suburbia

  1. This move is an attack on private property, on capital…even putting aside the whole Constitutional thingie about Congress making laws, not Obama or HUD.

    There’s a *reason* people pay more for one house than another, for one location than another.
    Obama wants the “why” to be irrelevant. The money to pay for the house, too.

    Mark Steyn wrote, “Half a decade or so back, I wrote: “It’s a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog feces and mix ’em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former.”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228312/dog-feces-ice-cream/mark-steyn

    This “regulation” mixes a quart of America with a quart of ghetto filth.

    Like

  2. This “regulation” is nothing less than an attack on the free market and private property.

    There is a *reason* people pay more for one house than another…a house in one location rather than another.
    Obama says “that’s not faaaaaaaair!”

    Mark Steyn once wrote, “Half a decade or so back, I wrote: “It’s a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog ***** and mix ’em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former.”
    (see NRO edition of September 26, 2009 for article)

    This tyrannical “regulation” mixes a quart of America with a quart of ghetto filth.

    Like

  3. This may be a brilliant solution to the problem of the decimated black family. Spread the single parent households, now over 70% of the black community, into the areas where two-parent households abound. The Democrat party destroyed the black family and they have no other solution to fix it. But do this right, and the peer pressure from “the Jones” next door may be enough to reverse the trend. Put me on record, NiceDeb. I’m the optimist!

    Like

  4. Going back to 2003 the City of Louisville Kentucky made a proposal and had made a ballot initiative to merge the City with the County creating a “Metro” municipality. My wife is from Louisville and I had a discussion with my in-laws regarding the proposal, with quickly turned into a argument. When I asked why on earth would anyone living outside of the City vote for something like this? Wrong question [or so they thought].

    The City had the normal disappearing citizen tax base and a lot of the businesses moved out of the city and into the suburbs and malls. Making the situation much worse for Louisville are the “tax exempt” properties that have bought up and developed within the city limits. The Universities of Louisville and Kentucky own and occupy substantial properties that include Campuses, University Hospitals and related tax exempt holdings. The Mayor at the time had served more than twenty years and pushed the idea and got it on the ballot.

    Long story short. The proposal passed, the [then] Mayor is now the Lt Governor and left the Metro with a budget deficit, no contract for the Police Department and on and on and on. Of course everyone’s taxes increased in the suburbs, not so much for the city since most of them don’t pay any. Everything I predicted would happen, did happen. The Metro even today stills operates at a deficit and is scrounging for more and more money. Not to be outdone, the State has a major hole in it’s budget.

    The very same proposal is now being suggested in other areas, as more and more cities find themselves in a hole that they can’t dig out of. If you hear of it in your area, recognize it for what it is. . . . a scam to redistribute unsustainable spending that cities have done for years, with a diminishing tax base. They want you to now pick up the tab and start paying the bills that they have racked up.

    Don’t fall for it!

    Like

  5. I think its a great idea to put ghettos in Marin County and other enclaves of rich liberals. Start next door to Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Put them in San Francisco and buy up the lack next door to the Kennedies and Clintons.

    Like

  6. Pingback: August 4, 2013 Headlines Brought To You By Summer At The Beach - Blur Brain

  7. In the UK, housing is considered a human right and nearly 20% of the population is in government-sponsored housing. They love to plop blocks of “social housing” into nice neighborhoods. It never elevates the poor; it always devalues the neighborhood. We looked to buy a lovely old 18th C. cottage, until we realized what they’d done to the rest of the street.

    Like

  8. Pingback: Megyn Kelly: Obama’s Radical Housing Plan “Social Engineering of the Worst Kind” (Video) | Nice Deb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s