Talk:Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708220506/http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Obama-administration-to-address-housing-6372723.php to http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Obama-administration-to-address-housing-6372723.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Housing and health section
This section must get some references. See for example the last sentence said in WP voice. We can't do that. Please help the article by looking for sources that make these statements or they will have to go regardless of how accurate they may be. Gandydancer (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit by DenverCoder19
I have reverted an edit by DenverCoder19, which removed material on the purported grounds that it violated WP:SYNTH. However, the section in question is cited to an article in Politico which extensively discusses the AFFH rule and Trump's revision of it. Prima facie, I don't agree that there's a SYNTH problem here - the article is clearly related and the claims in the section are clearly sourced to this discussion. I ask that DenverCoder19 explain why they believe the section is prohibited synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's definitely NOT synthesis, but the second, fourth, and fifth sentences are VERBATIM, and the other wording is so close that it MIGHT be a copyright violation, but I'm not an expert in how much can be copied without quoting...my guess it that this is too much and should be reworded...pinging the expert: ? --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry the material is a direct copy from Politico and we can't keep it.— Diannaa (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Article title/subject; issues
The article, as it is, should really be titled "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule of 2015", as it's 90% about [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/07/16/2015-17032/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 80 Fed. Reg. 42271 (2015)] and subsequent changes. Given that, I see two options:
 * (a) The article needs to cover the history of AFFH in a more comprehensive fashion (else it gives an unbalanced and lopsided view of the purported subject).
 * (b) The article should be changed to one solely about the 2015 rule and subsequent rule-making that affected it (which would require a new lead as the current one would be background information)

I'm not especially knowledgeable about AFFH, and while I think (a) would do more justice to the subject, am quite fine with either—I just think its subject is muddy and needs clarification. In terms of specific issues:
 * 1. There's nothing at all about the AFFH provisions in the Fair Housing Act section of the article on the Civil Rights Act of 1968—right now only the anti-discrimination elements of the act are included. A summary of AFFH and a sentence or two about its implementation ought to be added to that article, and should link here. It's worth deciding between (a) and (b) first, since the latter option could necessitate moving most of the lead to the other article.
 * 2. "Changes" is weak and even inaccurate as used in the current section titles. I'd propose that they be named:
 * "2015 rule" (if that remains a section rather than the subject)
 * "2020 Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice Rule", the actual title of 85 Fed. Reg. 47899 (2020) which rescinded the 2015 rule (as well as Clinton's 1994 order below)
 * "2021 Executive Order" (given that a Memorandum directing an "examination" of the rule(s) is the only step taken thus far by the Biden administration).
 * 3. Other issues worthy of discussion (and likely their own sections) off the top of my head: President Clinton's Executive Order 12892 (which was also rescinded by the Choice Rule of 2020); the Westchester County litigation; regulatory burden and cost/benefit analyses of the rule-making (in Westchester, the cost was more $70,000 per subsidized unit).
 * 4. The article needs better perspectives and opinions on HUD rule-making regarding whichever subject—(a) or (b) above—is chosen. Currently, Howard Husock's article is poorly represented—a lengthy, confusing excerpt fails to include his strongest arguments or his proposed alternative. And I especially object to the inclusion of Eugene Robinson's claim that criticism or suspension of AFFH is "a message to White people they can go ahead and do whatever they feel is necessary to keep Black people and Latinos from moving into their neighborhoods." That's ugly and beyond the pale—first, it's blatantly false, given that housing discrimination has been illegal since 1968. More to the point: while propaganda and deliberate misinformation are often important elements of articles and and thus must be included, there's no reason to do so in this one, given a surplus of more honest and thoughtful critiques.

Interested in discussing all the above—and especially welcome the input of those with much more knowledge than I. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)