biden* regime reinstates Obama rule that cities wanting fed housing $$ must build Section-8 in lovely suburbs

At the order of emperor Obama, his department of Housing and Urban Development ordered that if cities wanted to continue to get government funds for housing, they'd have to build Section 8 housing in pricey suburbs.  Cuz, fairness.

Of course no one with an IQ over 80 believed HUD would force places like Long Island or Beverly Hills or Darien Connecticut to build public housing projects.  Instead the projects would end up in merely upper-middle-class neighborhoods, next to $400,000 homes instead of next to $6 million ones.

Of course unless you pay close attention to rulings from the cesspool that is DC, you didn't know a thing about this policy.  One reason is that it wasn't part of a bill debated for months and then passed.  Instead it was simply a *RULE,* issued by one of the numberless federal rule-making agencies.  HUD even generously offered you peasants 60 days to "comment" on the proposed rule.  But you never knew about the rule, or the comment period--because the Lying Mainstream Media didn't want you to know about it.

Not a single word about this was breathed by any of the alphabet networks when Obama was emperor (i.e. making law himself instead of waiting for congress to pass a "law").

Of course it doesn't matter if the agency got a million negative comments about the rule.  HUD was going to issue the rule anyway, because Obama wanted it.  The purpose of allowing a comment period is to make voters think their views might have an impact on whether the proposed rule would become part of the "code of federal regulations."

Donald Trump realized building Section-8 housing in neighborhoods of $400,000 homes was a bad policy, and scrapped Obama's order.  But as you could have guessed, the biden* regime has reinstated it, just as the regime has done with so many Trump efforts to undo Obama-era damage.

Of course you DID hear about the reinstatement of this crappy policy by Team Biden, right?

Right?

Actually I'll bet this is the first time you've heard about this rule.  Gee, why do ya think the Mainstream Media have ignored it yet again, eh?  Could it be that the media knew most voters would be furious about it?  And of course the Media will never do anything that would cost their favored party votes.

One interesting twist:  Most Democrat policies are designed to give cash or benefits to Dem voters.  It's a bribe, and it works wonderfully for Dem re-election.  The policies harm society as a whole, but with the help of the Lying Media the Dems are always able to hide this.  If questioned about a disastrous result, they claim either a) that result didn't happen (despite evidence); or b) that their policy didn't cause it; or c) that there was no possible way anyone could have predicted that result--even if it was predicted by hundreds of experts.

But by chance this policy (building free public housing in good neighborhoods) has been tried before, in (I think) either Memphis or Nashville--and it was a total disaster.

The city had several public-housing projects, and as with all such projects, crime was rampant.  So the liberals had an Idea!  The problem, they said, is that when you put large numbers of...um...poorly-educated, uncivilized, unsocialized people in one place, people who would otherwise be "good" are forced to become violent criminals.

No one ever explained exactly how that happened, but that was never needed, because the idea struck the liberals as totally logical. 

Other liberals countered that that was wrong, and the real problem was simply that forcing poor people to live small apartments was dehumanizing, and if they had nice single-family homes instead of apartments, there wouldn't be rampant crime.

A check with residents of  condominiums might have shown that civilized people could live in apartment-sized places without resorting to crime, but the liberal pols couldn't be bothered--because they were Developing A Plan:  They would spend a huge amount of cash buying groups of five to ten homes miles away from the projects, and would shut down that project and disperse the residents to the single-family homes!  

And they did.  

A year later city pols were claiming their Solution had worked, that crime had dropped.  Actually that wasn't true, but like Democrat mayors everywhere, they knew no one would wade thru all the police reports to find out.

So a pair of sociologists decided to do a study.  They plotted the location and date of every crime in the past year in that city with a red dot.  When they were done they noticed something really odd: their plot showed flower-like clusters of red, in widely separated locations.

The sociologists were mystified:  What could account for such isolated, nearly-circular clusters of crimes?

Simply by accident, they discovered that nearly at the center of each red blossom was one of the groups of  single-family homes to which the city had transferred the residents of the large crime-riddled public-housing project.  

Instead of the move to single-family homes reducing crime, the same thugs who were wreaking havoc in the Project had brought their criminal habits with 'em when the city moved 'em to a nice single-family home far away.  All the brilliant theories were crap--as most rational people could have guessed.

And yet...despite that clear demonstration that building "free" public housing imports crime in bushels, when it happens Democrats will bleat that no one could possibly have predicted it.

And yet...the study did exactly that.