Dems support Obama-era rule to force cities to end zoning for single-family homes

If you're an American college student the odds are that you were raised in "the suburbs," in a single-family home.  Did you like those surroundings?  If you ever plan to have kids, would you rather raise 'em in the same environment, or would you prefer living next to a high-rise, low-income, gruberment-subsidized housing project?

If you're rational and not a socialist, leftist, Democrat or communist this is obviously a rhetorical question:  With few exceptions, rational people choose a single-family home, regardless of location. Only a "woke" leftist moron would choose the second option.

But amazingly, Democrat leaders hate single-family homes, and thus hate suburbs, since the single-family home is the norm there.  They don't SAY they hate single-family homes, but their actions say they do.  Specifically, during Obozo's emperorship the leftists running the federal agency that sets housing rules and policy--HUD--pushed out a 100-page set of rules called "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" (AFFH), that would effectively end single-family housing and suburbs.

Of course you think this is a conservative scare-story; that it's simply un-possible.  For one thing, if you're over the age of 30 or so you probably know that cities set their own zoning regulations, and you don't believe those could be overruled by the federal government.  That's a reasonable belief.  Unfortunately it's totally wrong:  The federal government constantly passes rules and laws overriding what the states do.  If you haven't recognized that by now, stop reading and go back to watching TV, cuz this is beyond your interest.

So first:  Cunning socialists know that it's far, far easier to dictate policies by simply having a federal agency issue a RULE than by trying to pass a law to do exactly the same thing.  Cuz laws are typically debated, in public, and take a long time to pass.  By contrast, RULES by an agency fly under most peoples' radar, and don't attract much attention.

As you've guessed by now, AFFH was NOT a law but simply a RULE.  And for those who naively believe the feds can't ovverrule state and local policies, the cunning Obama used a well-known weapon to do the same thing:  The RULE gives HUD the power to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in "Community Development Block Grants" from any city that defies the rule.

To re-state: AFFH would withhold funds from any city that refused to eliminate zoning regulations allowing single-family housing.

Now consider that federal judges have RULED that the Trump administration does NOT have the power to withhold federal dollars from so-called "sanctuary cities" and states that have ordered their cops to release illegal aliens without notifying ICE.  But Obama's lackeys ruled that withholding funds from a city that allows zoning for single-family housing was just peachy.  And if you think the corrupt, liberal-loving judges will throw out AFFH using the same logic that blocked the Trump adminstration from withholding money from sanctuary cities, you're too naive to breathe.

So, what does the rule do?  It effect it would force cities to put an end to single family zoning, replacing single-family homes with high-density, low-income housing.  Of course no builder or developer can make a profit on "low-income housing" without government cash, so in essence these hi-rise, hi-density projects would be public housing, with all the associated problems.

Trump's directed his appointees to rescind AFFH, but Biden has promised to reinstate it, and to vigorously enforce it.  

So...if you're a hip gen-X or Y or Z, or non-binary, or tranny, AFFH is fine, cuz dense cities are hip, cool, and very friendly to singles.  By contrast, if you ever plan to raise kids--or simply don't like living in a high-density apartment complex--you're likely to be a bit skeptical of the Dems' plan to effectively end single-family housing around large cities.

Which raises an interesting question:  What's the cutoff population, under which a small city could keep single-family zoning without losing block grants?

You can already guess:  There isn't a cutoff.  Obama and his lackeys wanted every city to genuflect before their power. 

Some conservatives believe they'd found a solution: Move outside city limits.  Yeah, no.  When Dem-ruled Philly raised city taxes to insane levels a couple of decades ago, thousands of middle-class families moved outside city limits.  You might think the Dem rulers of Philly's city gruberment would respond by lowing taxes.  Hahahahahaha!  No, they won by unilaterally declaring new, larger city limits, bringing the formerly-safe, low-tax suburbs back under their control.  It's called "annexation."

Cool, eh?  When Democrats rule, nothing is safe from their reach.

Now Dems are pushing this same tactic under the cunning slogan "Better together," saying it's hip and trendy to be part of the corrupt, Dem-ruled cesspool metropolis.  And the "woke" kids are eating it up.