Bush's new neighborhood: until 2000, blacks banned - unless they were servants

HOLY SHxT!

And here I thought I couldn't dislike him more....

That's just incredible.
Will this be on any news whatsoever in America?

Please, oh please, anyone who is more connected than me:
let KEITH and RACHEL know about this important and terrifying LEGACY info...

and meanwhile
GO HERE
http://nomobveto.org/story.php
and tell the No Mob Veto HATER-BIGOT-XTIANISTS
your story. I know I did, and it brought down
my blood pressure a good 30 points! Heh!

---

by: medaka @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:00:06 AM CST

Is there a place on their sight to read the stories posted?

  This looks like a sham way to get the E mail addresses of people to claim all are on their side.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 13:00:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this is 100% wrong

Those provisions in deeds became illegal and unenforceable decades ago under the Fair Housing Act (1968).  However, it was not uncommon to see those restricted covenants carried forward because they often carried other restrictions that were valid.  

---

by: arsenalchick @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:07:04 AM CST

You are right--it's wrong

If you read the CCand R's of many homes across the nation, you will find similar.  They became null and void in 1968 but just weren't removed for the reasons you cite. My house in L.A. has them in there.

I still can't stand the Bushes though.

---

by: DavidinPS @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Others Too

One place I lived had a very long list of those who could not live in the house and neighborhood.  Jews for one.
But as pointed out, all of these became moot once the Fair Housing Act became law.

Pam,
This movie has been rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and destruction

---

by: Blonde Pam @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

this is one of those

situations that makes me imagine the wealthy white covenant participants being fully aware of an outdated and legally indefensibly rule and deciding, with evil grins and much Stepfordness, to let it stay on paper.  It's more insidious than a simple non-action to let something stand. Allowing something so discriminatory and racist to stay on governing papers is a real statement. It's active and conscious bigotry.

If confronted in a big way by cable news or any MSM, I'm sure we'll hear things like, "oh we weren't really aware it was in there," or "oh, it's a document that no one really pays attention to." BS! These types ALWAYS pay attention to documents and rules that detail the kinds of people permitted to live next door to them.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:34:05 AM CST

I don't that is fair

I disagree with this because one cannot unilaterally remove restrictive covenants from property.  For a very quick primer on the difficulty in removing them, see this link over at the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/...

---

by: arsenalchick @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:35:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

interesting

from that article:

If that doesn't work, you can try to get the covenant invalidated. There are many instances under which a judge might invalidate some or all of the provisions of a covenant because they are vague, impractical or flat-out illegal. For example, some older covenants included discriminatory provisions that prevented the sale of homes to certain minority groups.

It doesn't seem that it would be too tough to get the "no blacks" provision removed if the residents didn't want it there. I'm not so up for coming to the moral defense of wealthy residents of a gated community (not that I'm saying you are). Let them make a good-faith first step on this now that it's been brought to their, and the public's, attention.  To me, when something outlandish like this is brought into the light, there is a real responsibility to step up and try to make it right.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:47:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it is a question of paying for it

Why on earth would anyone willingly pay for the expense of hiring a lawyer to bring a case before a judge so that an already invalid and unenforceable provision of a deed can be removed? There is no personal benefit to be gained and one incurs lots of expense to make what amounts to a feel good gesture on a problem that the political system has already sorted out.  You also have to deal with the free rider problem if you are talking about removing it in an entire neighborhood. While I don't condone the provisions, I don't feel that it is rational behavior to deal with this non-problem.

All of this said, I recognize that discrimination in housing still exists.  However, it largely de facto discrimination on the basis of income that is the real problem.      

---

by: arsenalchick @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 15:21:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't completely

disagree. But, I am someone that would pay the money to have something like that changed. If I were in this community, I would absolutely consider it my responsibility to remove such an ugly blemish from my residence's past.

I also have no problems shaming these elites into fixing something like this by having them correct the document and donate to housing advocacy orgs.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 16:56:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

elites

not all neighborhoods covered by these things are populated with "elites".  while gated communities may have been more apt to create these discriminatory covenants, it is a mistake to think that "regular folk" didn't also buy into new subdivisions "protected" from minorities (and thus supposedly falling home values).  also, neighborhoods change over the years for all sorts of reasons, so that even covenanted places originally full of bona fide "elites" decades ago may now be populated by a whole different economic class.  can't make assumptions.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 17:07:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I should have

been more specific. :) I did actually mean the one that Bush is moving into.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 17:23:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I recall from the first Bush presidency

The Bush family had a black lawn jockey in front of their family estate in Maine for decades. "Walker's Point" belonged to W's great-grandfather at the time. The home was purchased by Bush #41 in the late 1970s and the lawn jockey remained in place for a short time.

It was first replaced with a white lawn jockey and then disappeared when Bush #41 became Reagan's V.P.

At the time, I remember thinking "What kind of tacky people would have a lawn jockey in front of their house?"

Now, we all know the Bush's far too well.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM CST

Bush #41...

He's the same guy who referred to Jeb's kids as "the little brown ones."

Of course, they have no problem when the brown people have money.

When it comes down to it, the Bushies love the green people.

---

by: the.sue @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:30:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Isn't this exactly what you'd expect?

After all, it's not like he'd move to East Harlem, or Watts.

If there was any semblance of justice in this country, Congress wold pass a law requiring him to live in the most horribly run-down house in New Orleans' Ninth Ward.

Americans suffer from an ignorance that is not only colossal, but sacred.  --James Baldwin

---

by: QScribe @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM CST

Seattle is littered with such "neighborhood covenants"

As mentioned by others, they are not legally enforceable. They have not been removed here because, as I understand it, it would require something like a unanimous vote in each neighborhood to do so, or some similar gargantuan hurdle.  And since it's a historic artifact at this point, no one is willing to put in the time and effort.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:51:11 PM CST

covenants by seattle neighborhood

here you can read the variable wording of the covenants by seattle neighborhood.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Selling points

  Sad to say, but there are many people who will use these as a selling point for a potential home buyer.  As long as buyers ask for white neighborhoods, these rules will stay on the books, even though they are moot.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 13:11:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i'm not so sure.

the covenants have not been enforceable for 40 years, so there isn't necessarily any correlation at this point between the restrictions in the covenant and the current racial make up of a neighborhood's residents.

the covenants stay on the books because they are nigh on impossible to remove, not because they have any meaningful relationships to current reality in the neighborhoods.  if a home buyer wants a house in a white (or black, or latino or asian) neighborhood, there are much better ways of finding such a location.  driving around and looking at the neighbors is the most popular means, i would imagine.  reading defunct covenant language is not.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 16:59:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Besides...

since it's a historic artifact at this point, no one is willing to put in the time and effort.

And certainly, no one would really be all that upset about the fact that the existence of said convenants, unenforceable or not, sends a very clear message to people of color that says, "you're not welcome here."

---

by: Darkrose @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 18:21:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm white and it bothers me to no end

that my city is full of this garbage.  And I know the message it sends.  However, time and resources are very limited and I'd rather spend them on aspects of the law we can actually change to active effect.  If there were a straightforward way to rid the city of these covenants, believe me I'd be organizing my neighborhood to do it.

I was happy to find out a few months after moving here that King County (where Seattle is) officially adopted MLK as the King we honor with the name of the county.  Formerly it named King after an early white settler by that name.  Like the lingering covenants, this is merely a symbol.  But since it was actively achieved by county citizens who joined together to make a statement for civil rights, I hope it does a lot to send the message that the covenants (and other problems) are trash in the past.  The people of Seattle and King Co. of today deliberately choose to send the message that all are equal.  This message can't erase the covenants, but hopefully will drowned out their lingering effects.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 19:45:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually this doesn't mean anything

I had a friend who worked for a Title agency in Texas, and many of the deeds have such covenents in them, even when they are selling the house to African Americans - they are null and void but it's too difficult to clean up all the old property titles.

---

by: tiponeill @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 13:03:52 PM CST

Not good enough

I'm sorry, but "it's too difficult" isn't an excuse. If I were trying to move into a neighborhood with such a covenant, I promise it would be a lot more difficult when I took it to court.

The idea that legacy racism is no big deal because it can't be enforced ignores the fact that for people of color, those "unenforceable" laws send a very clear message: "we still don't want you here".

---

by: Darkrose @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 18:24:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can you force someone to change their title language?

And if you can, how is it done?  Until you can answer those questions, you need to back off of your criticisms of what other people are or aren't doing on this issue.  If it's as easy as snapping your fingers, I wish you would inform me because as far as I am aware, it is not.

I hate the fact that there are still laws on the books promising prison for people saying anything anti-god, or for having gay sex.  But I can't force the legislatures of MA or GA or wherever to clean their books of these defunct unconstitutional laws.  How is this covenant thing any different?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 19:51:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Defending the indefensible

If it's as easy as snapping your fingers, I wish you would inform me because as far as I am aware, it is not.

I didn't say it was easy. I said it was the right thing to do, and that I don't understand why you're focused on the reasons why convenants can't be changed, as opposed to why they should be changed.

It took almost 40 years after Loving v. Virginia for Alabama to strike down the law banning interracial marriage in their state. The law was unenforceable post-Loving, but the fact that the state's voters decided that hateful laws shouldn't remain on the books sends an important message. So does the fact that Bush is moving into a neighborhood with a racially restrictive covenant in a state that has a long, sorry history of racism that continues to this day.

Also, I'm sorry if my anger offends you, but I'm not going to "back off" criticising racism.

---

by: Darkrose @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 14:59:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Crawford

Crawford isn't good enough for him anymore? Or has he finally cleared all that @#$%^&* brush?

---

by: AbstractRandom @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 13:24:13 PM CST

C'mon, this is not Bush's fault

There are so many things that ARE Bush's fault, we don't need to waste time dredging up tenuous guilt-by-association stories.

---

by: dewdrop_world @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 13:37:56 PM CST

I'm surprised Bushy didn't move here

http://www.faulkingtruth.com/A...

Several years old but some of it still holds true.

Gaillardia is a gated community in OKC surrounded by a golf course and other stuff that's owned in part by OPUBCO (Gaylords, of The Oklahoman fame and, to some extent, the NBA's OKC Blunder -- owner's inlaws run The Oklahoman). The name is an insult to the blanket flower that's also known as gaillardia (and I'm not a bigtime gardener).

Sad to say the idiots in this state would welcome the dumbass with open arms.


Help!

---

by: sterrapin @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 01:18:33 AM CST

Sundown

  The Town of Palm Beach is still certainly a "sundown town."
Blacks would certainly be subject to "stop and frisk" if not
outright arrest if they were caught on that side of the lake
after dark. Palm Beach isn't a gated community, (at least not
yet) but like many gated communities they issue residents decals for their cars. If the police see a car without a decal in the town after sundown, the blue lights are likely
to come on and after answering a lot of questions, the driver
will be told to head to the nearest bridge and exit town and
the police car will follow them to the bridge just to make
sure. The town gained noteriety some years ago when they imposed a "pass card" requirement for hired help from the
other side of the lake. Pass cards which required the applicant to be photographed, fingerprinted, and subject
to a criminal record check were technically required for
all hired help regardless of race, but the law was only
enforced against blacks. Some people compared it to South
Africa's "group areas act" of the apartheid era when pass
cards were required to move about the country. Gary Trudeau
even included Palm Beach's pass card rule in an installment
of Doonesbury.  

---

by: fredfin @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 03:37:59 AM CST

plug for book mentioned in first link

Jim Loewen, Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of Segregation in America.

This is a fascinating historical and demographic study of towns that kept out blacks, by terror and threats,  or by steering / restrictive covenants. He focuses on the Midwest, especially Illinois (Chicago and downstate), Indiana, Ozarks parts of Missouri and Arkansas. I found this of particular interest since I have lived in the Midwest all my life, and passed through or near these towns on my travels. A lot of people don't realize that the impetus for forming the NAACP was a deadly race riot in Springfield IL in 1909 - yes, Springfield, home of Abraham Lincoln. Massive race riots occured in East St. Louis IL (1921-ish) and Tulsa OK (same general time period) - until the riots, Tulsa had one of the wealthiest black communities in the US - afterwards, some 100 dead, a huge number fled, and 100 city blocks burned to the ground. It's not just a Southern thing.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:42:08 PM CST

a picture says it all

courtesy, the slog.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 17:37:17 PM CST