In Part 1, we saw that housing advocates are advocating four “rights” pertaining to housing. In this post, we will examine the first of these alleged rights, the “right” to choose. We will see that, if put into practice, this “right” will eliminate the freedom of choice.
Housing advocates state that,
The right to choose is the promise of mobility, integration and choice of where to live for people of color.
All individuals—including people of color—have long had the right to choose where to live. There are people of color living in virtually every affluent neighborhood in the country. It is fair to assume that they choose to live there.
In order to act on that choice, an individual must be able to pay the price of admission—he must be able to afford the housing that is available. Housing advocates acknowledge and lament this fact. They don’t like the fact that low-income individuals cannot afford the housing available in affluent neighborhoods.
To overcome this, they want government to
Build new subsidized housing and improve the ease of housing voucher usage in high opportunity white neighborhoods where housing choices for low income persons of color do not exist.
Housing advocates want taxpayers to pay for this housing, whether they choose to or not. So, while they promote the “right” to choose for low-income people of color, housing advocates want to deny the freedom to choose to taxpayers. But this is only one example.
Housing advocates decry the fact that many landlords do not accept housing vouchers. They call this discriminatory, and want to force landlords to accept vouchers. Indeed, a bill filed in the Texas Legislature would make it illegal to reject a potential tenant on the basis of his source of income, i.e., housing vouchers. So, while they promote the “right” to choose for low-income people of color, housing advocates want to deny the freedom to choose to landlords.
Further, they advocate using land-use regulations to compel the economic and racial integration of a city.
In furtherance of the right to choose, document and track progress toward residential economic and racial integration in the city. Challenge exclusionary land use practices. Combine housing planning with traditional land use planning.
In other words, a neighborhood that prohibits multi-family housing should be forced to allow it. So, while they promote the “right” to choose for low-income people of color, housing advocates want to deny the freedom to choose to live in a neighborhood consisting of single-family homes.
In promoting the “right” to choose where one lives, housing advocates want to deny freedom of choice to those who will pay for it and those who will supply that housing. On one hand, they want more choices for low-income people of color. On the other hand, they want fewer choices for taxpayers, landlords, and property owners. This is the inevitable result of promoting a right that does not exist—the destruction of legitimate rights.
3 comments
Comments are closed.