In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]

I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.
Saint Ole's original wordings & recommendations for how to form a
neighborhood corporation free of anyone but Christian whites even
prohibited Hindus, as if that were any great worry in San Clemente.

The racist, christian, conspirasy-theory organization "Retaking America"
which is worried about the One World Government's desire to force
integration of God's people with mud people, today still promotes
Homeowner Associations as a key weapon for the continuing & express
purpose of keeping neighborhoods exclusively white & "their kind" of
christian. Their charters of incorporation don't have to say all buyers
must be White Christian Patriots, but the purpose is fulfilled. Of course
when the Kamias Christian Homeowners Association named themselves that,
wanting their neighborhood to be exclusively Christian, they didn't
consciously want to be racists also, but that's the effect of it, &
whether they achieve a racist outcome "naturally" as part of their
ingrained culture or consciously as lunatics like those Retaking American
crackpots, it's ultimately the same thing.

So Hickery Woods Homeowner Association in Kentucky is Lutherans only, &
"coincidentally" whites only. Meadowglen Homeowners Association of
Michigan is a humongous & Christian enclave with something like six
Christian denominations represented. Apache Wells Homeowners Assoication
even puts in their charter that they're Christian only (most wouldn't
admit in their charters as it gives something to sue over). There is an
all-white Christian HOA in Washington DC right hemmed in by integrated &
predominantly black neighborhoods, if I recall it's called Brickland or
Broadland HOA.

The county government's round-about efforts to get that ultra-racist
Houston Homeowners Association (George Bush was formerly their explicit
pal while governor, though not standing up for them lately) has Christian
Patriots as their primary backers & fundraisers to help fight against the
county for the continued right to be racists & enforce their own
discriminatory housing. The three things that "just happen" to be true of
99% of Homeowner Associations is they're white, they're racist, & they
purport to be christian. Home Schooling, Christian Patriot, & Homeowner
Association -- they go together for the white separatist worldview.

But I wasn't addressing the far-right wacko versions. The NORMATIVE
Homeowner Association IS epitomized by the Palicido del Mar, since Saint
Ole set it up as THE model & all across America whites who could afford
to, & worried blacks ruined their "property values," set them up for
overtly racistpurposes.

There are rare & occasional exceptions. Brickle Homeowner Association, an
enormous enclave in Miami, defines itself as "Christ Centered." But they
are racially very integrated & work consciously to not be the horrifying
monstrously racist things that Homeowner Associations generally are.
There's no Jews or Hindus of course, but they'd likely welcome any who'd
convert, but it's a long way from Saint Ole's original plan for what HOAs
were supposed to do, & what most of them in fact do.

it can even be "gated" with
a guard at the front gate to protect middleclass whities from "crime"
which is a code-word for "******s."

People can get into these developments posed as joggers, and still rob
people that have let their guard down -- BECAUSE of the gate and the
guard. In the final analysis, it's unclear whether gated subdivisions
are more secure.

Of course they're no safer. They're also LESS moral, LESS decent, MORE
corrupt & disgusting -- but they like to THINK they're safer & moral & all
that stuff they're not. One would hope that what they are are targets.

It makes it legal to be upfront &
openly judgemental about why the mixed-race family is rejected from buying
into the given community, & if they think they should have the right to
sue over discrimination, tough.

This was prior to Shelley v. Kraemer, although I will agree that this
legacy of exclusion has had effects that persist to the present.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case33.htm

The Shlley v Kraemer case was very limited in its effect, it essentially
turned everything back to the states, most of which have done nothing
about it to this very day, though since California began taking action in
1998/99, a few other states (or counties within states) have followed;
things are changing right now. Shelly v Kraemer opened avenues for
potentially good new legislation that just never came about. As did a 1966
case of even greater importance that theoretically banned racist covenants
but racist covenants exist to this day & are enforced. The Shelly v
Kraemer case impacted only lands that were bequeathed to government
entities, & did settle once & for all that racist covenants did not have
to be honored by government entities. And it provided a citation to
attempt to apply the same standard in other circumstances, but unless
cases with additional contexts were actually brought to courts, nothing
really changes.

In the 60s such cases as Shelly v Kraemer were repeatedly cited for a
broading body of case law that prohibits public businesses & all sorts of
public as well as governmental entities from discrimination, but did not
greatly impact private clubs or incorporated semi-autonomus housing
communities. A huge body of case law that was state by state rather than
federal undermines the "right" or "privilege" to discriminate, but none of
it changed the reality of racist HOAs.

Nevertheless, the victims don't have to sue. There are government
agencies that will handle the situation, like the state Fair Employment
and Housing Commission.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...-6841242c.html

If this origin has changed slightly over time, & such enclaves are no
longer fully dominated by the initial purpose to keep racism legal, it is
only different insofar as there are now Chinese housing associations here
in Washington, & lots of them in California wherein only middleclass Latin
Americans are permitted to buy homes.

It is true that HOAs proliferated when they had become *the* main
vehicle to achieve racial discrimination in housing. Today, however,
anyone that's prevented from buying housing on the basis of national
origin, in California, can contact the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing.
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/

This does not impact the "right" of HOAs to continue racist policies
though it makes it harder (in California at least) to foreclose on houses
of unwanted residents by fining them unjustly. It's one of a half-dozen
things that since 1998 have begun to whittle at, but my no means remove,
the "right" for HOAs to have racist policies, & this whittling is being
done state by state rather than federally (though some of the in-progress
cases may eventually reach the Supreme Court). California now has a half
dozen methods to "fight back" against racist HOA behavior, but cases have
to be taken selectively & proceed slowly. Senator Nakano's bill now
permits anti-racists within HOAs to sue the racists who run the places, &
Inouye's bill prohbits HUD funding & the like going into these racist
enclaves though they don't have to change their policies if they don't
take the funding. None of these tools have even started to cause places
like Placido del Mar to permit their enclaves to become integrated.
They'll go down in flames first.

And to make matters worse, there's no evidence that homeowner
associations protect property values. They're set up using that purpose
as justification for creating them.

The effect on "property value" was always merley a code-word for "come
join us if you're racist *******s too." Obviously a community full of
racist *******s is NEVER the ideal place to live & the fact that those
*******s run the places means they're worth less than they could've been.

I won't common on the rest below, but leave it unclipped, as some of it
really has an echo of hope in it -- especially that bit about real estate
companies now advertising "No HOAs!" as a marketing plus. It was a
marketing plus when Granny Artemis & I were looking for our home. When I
realized I could not stand to leave the city for a town UNLESS i could
find an integrated town (fortunately there are many of those to choose
from around here), this automatically ruled out HOA ruled enclaves because
having grown up in a mixed race (& mixed faith) family, I was totally
creeped out by 100% honky neighborhoods.

-paggers

In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

As more and more HOAs are created, and more and more people relate their
experiences, people are getting wind that homebuyers pay for 'pretty'
with oppression-by-adhesion-contract, and you can get 'pretty' without
the oppression.

The uniform "beige" town (city) of Cary, NC, establishes that local
governments can be as persnickety as associations, and that associations
are unnecessary.

That's why "The term 'No HOA' is starting to crop up in real estate
classified ads in the Phoenix area, where almost all new homes are built
under an association's wing. 'For most people it is a real selling
point,' says Rachel Linden, an agent with Coldwell Banker Success
Realty. 'Homeowners associations can be a real pain in the butt.' "
[Kiplinger Magazine, September, 2000]

"[T]oo many developers are more concerned with the immediate marketing
of a property and not long–term value potential."
http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/15/pf/y...dcom/index.htm

Moreover, as housing with no HOAs becomes more scarce, relative to
housing with HOAs -- something that is clearly happening
http://members.cox.net/concernedhomeowners/NmbrHOAs.htm
the values of homes in jurisdictions governed by HOAs will decrease,
relative to those of homes in jurisdictions not governed by HOAs.

Not only don't HOAs protect property values now, they cannot protect
their values from the "invisible hand" -- the inevitable effects of the
free market forces of supply and demand.

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

wrote:
exactly my point!!!!! there is NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A DECORATIVE FENCE. right.
thats what it was, less than 3' in height and 50% open and when the vines grew up it,
decorative.
what it says is a fence on the lot line (all around the yard) DOES NOT REQUIRE A
PERMIT when it is less than 3 feet high and "open". What they say is "like a picket
or split rail". They are not specifically saying it MUST be wood, but that is what
they mean without explicitly stating so. A 3 foot rabbit fence is 90%+ open...


That's what I said a day or two ago. Especially if you plant some thing
like sweet peas on it. It might not even be a fence anymore but a trellis.

Best regards,
Bob

paghat wrote:

In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]


I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?


The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

That's kind of a ridiculous claim. Where are your statistics? You have a
random sampling of how many HOA covenants? Zero? That's what I thought.

It's like boycotting cotton, because once upon a time the cotton industry
was supported by slave labor.

Best regards, :-)
Bob

--
"When the wolf is chasing the sleigh, throw him a raisin cookie, but don't
stop to bake him a cake." --Banacek

(paghat) expounded:

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

Now you've taken this a bit over the top. This may happen in some
areas, but it certainly can't happen around here. Discrimination like
that would be all over the Boston Globe in a heartbeat. There are HOA
neighborhoods all over the ritzy-titzy towns around me, and there's
blacks, jews, arabs, whatever living in them. If this is still going
on in other parts of the country, I hope they're getting their asses
sued soundly.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 05:30:48 -0400, Ann wrote:

Now you've taken this a bit over the top.


NOW?!!

This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Paggers is clueless and ranting IMO.

wrote in message
...
exactly my point!!!!! there is NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A DECORATIVE FENCE.
right.
thats what it was, less than 3' in height and 50% open and when the vines
grew up it,
decorative.
what it says is a fence on the lot line (all around the yard) DOES NOT
REQUIRE A
PERMIT when it is less than 3 feet high and "open".

What was reason given when you were ordered to remove the fence?

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
paghat wrote:

In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]


I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?


The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

That's kind of a ridiculous claim. Where are your statistics? You have a
random sampling of how many HOA covenants? Zero? That's what I thought.

It's like boycotting cotton, because once upon a time the cotton industry
was supported by slave labor.


Exactly. First of all, restrictive covenants exists and are enforceable
with or without a HOA. Secondly, restrictions that are illegal are not
enforceable. For instance, my deed says that I can't put up a satellite
dish. The Communications act of 1996 voids that restriction. My HOA can
not prohibit me from having a satellite dish, but they can tell me where and
how it can be mounted as long as the guidelines don't prevent me from
receiving a signal or are not unreasonably restrictive. The FCC says that
the placement of the dish can't me more stringent than the placement of an
AC unit. Finally, because there are violations of the law does not mean
that there is no law.

"Ann" wrote in message
...
(paghat) expounded:

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

Now you've taken this a bit over the top. This may happen in some
areas, but it certainly can't happen around here.

I don't see how it could happen anywhere considering that HOAs are bound by
the federal Fair Housing Act. From a practical standpoint, one has to
understand that the actual unit parcel and the home that is built on it are
the property of the homeowner. Since the homeowner and his agents are bound
by federal law, there is no way that the HOA can force him to discriminate
against Jews or any other protected class.

Okay, I'm gonna come out of lurk mode for a bit here. I've read most of
these posts, and being a property appraiser, I deal with many of these
issues on a daily basis from the public.

There is what is called The Bundle of Rights, and here they are.

*The right to use
*The right to sell
*The right to lease or rent
*The right to enter or leave
*The right to refuse to exercise any of the above

NOW. The simple fact of the matter is, if you purchase a home within a
subdivision of property that contains by-laws, you are agreeing to the
by-laws. The documentation is signed when closing (usually). These by-laws
are maintained by the community and are entered into public record (the
courts), so they are also backed up by the county in which they sit.

If you don't agree with those by-laws, you don't buy within that
subdivision. That simple. Why? Because 9 times out of 10, someone will be
in that neighborhood ENFORCING those by-laws!!! If you live there already
and don't like them, the chances of getting rid of those by-laws are tricky,
expensive legally, and most likely impossible. If you live in a
neighborhood that enforces the by-laws on some and not others, well, that is
an easy win in a court of law (we see this happening often).

The other thing that can over ride the most simple definition of these
rights are zoning and codes within the city/township, or county. Such as
having 60 cars rotting on a lot can cause some serious health problems sort
of things. And there is always the good ol' eminent domain for roads and
such.

In reality, the laws and by-laws are there to support a neighborhood style
of living that others want and have pretty much established by court record.
If you don't like them, don't live there.

There are subdivisions within this county that don't allow the house to be
seen fromt he highway. Another that controls what you can plant, where, and
how much of it. I've even seen subdivisions that have it written how tall
your grass can get; if you don't mow it, they'll do it for you and charge
you. Yes, I've even seen a lean against a property because the grass was
not green enough. The color range of a lawn was in those by-laws. I've
seen that if the community suspects an infestation of insect or rodent, they
have the right to ENTER your home without warning and inspect it.

I have also seen situations that are like the pink house with the farmer.
The bottom line is if that farmer has not legally joined that association
there isn't a damned thing they can do to him. Some people forget that they
cannot control what is outside of that subdivision's boundries.

Lowering property values with the venison hanging on the basketball hoop and
the alleged molestation of a child, plus the "trailers" being left out?
That one is iffy. It would take years of property sales within that direct
neighborhood to prove such a thing, and even that proof can be argued. Some
neighborhoods just fall. Now if it was in your block, that may be a
different matter. At this point in time I am appraising a neighborhood that
is claiming to have a possible crack house in it (maybe two or three). So
far the property values have not been affected what so ever, and that
complaint has existed for about 3 years now. Yes, the yard is a junk heap
(the first suspiscion that it's a meth/crack house). But the property
values either hold steady or rise.

So it all depends as to what you personally want to live with. I personally
searched for a subdivision (cause I can't afford to maintain my own well)
that would leave me alone and found it.

--
Dance as if no one were watching,
Sing as if no one were listening,
And live every day as if it were your last.

Tom J expounded:


This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Sorry, but I find Vox to be as rabid as Paghat on this one.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

"Kari" expounded:

So it all depends as to what you personally want to live with. I personally
searched for a subdivision (cause I can't afford to maintain my own well)
that would leave me alone and found it.

I think that's what the vast majority does. As for me, no
subdivisions at all, thanx, I'll fend for myself in a stand alone home
with as few neighbors as possible.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

In article , zxcvbob
wrote:

paghat wrote:

In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]


I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?


The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

That's kind of a ridiculous claim. Where are your statistics? You have a
random sampling of how many HOA covenants? Zero? That's what I thought.

It's like boycotting cotton, because once upon a time the cotton industry
was supported by slave labor.

Best regards, :-)
Bob

Don't be a silly, next you'll be asking me to prove there are no ******s
in the Klan, cuz where's the head count. When they even advertise as
"Christ Oriented," when they obtain funding from Christian Patriot
fundraisers to fight for the continuing right to remain racist as is
happening in Huston, when another is explicitely for Lutherans, that alone
guarantees No Jews Even Apply, nor was that accidental. And if you're
paying attention Saint Ole Hanson banned explicitely Jews, Hindus &
Moslems, and all religions other than Christian & all races other than
white, setting the standard that remains even for HOAs that aren't as
explicit. But yes, population statistics are available for HOA
neighborhoods, having been used in court cases, having been documented by
the HOAs who're proud of their bigotry & by organizatiosn that fight
against bigotry.

And there's no Once Upon A Time about it, blacks & jews & gays know full
well that if they attempt to move into a HOA and have to pass a
committee's idea of proper muster, they're gonna be weeded out. I suspect
that's the real reason realators now consider "No HOA!" on the "plus" side
when advertising a home for sale -- it means the potential buyers is
considerably expanded.

Exactly HOW overt does it get? Here's a specific case, & nothing the
least bit unique about it. The Habad congregation is the only Orthodox
synogogue in Marin County, CA., consisting of a mere 18 families that live
just outside the boundaries of the Lucas Valley Homeowners Association.
When they sought to expand their synogogue facilities, the HOA immediately
drummed up something like 630 signatures to stop them. They had several
excuses other than "we hate Jews," but their motivation was pretty obvious
from the start, & became more obvious as they proceded. They CLAIMED they
didn't want the extra traffic on Saturdays when children are playing (
Jews aren't welcome even OUTSIDE the HOA reach because of extra traffic
inside the HOA boundaries on Saturday??? The Orthodox don't drive on
Saturday! the Orthodox WALK to synogogue). The HOA didn't want the added
noise pollution (who the hell ever heard a huge ruckus from a
synogogue??). There were an additional 13 families in all of Marin county
that might've been interested in the Hadad synogogue & might've moved to
the neighborhood -- so the primary reason for the HOA getting all
horrified was, & I quote them exactly: "an erosion of the quality of life
in our neighborhood."

After public hearings & delays caused by the HOA, the only legal &
rational decision was made by the county, & the permits were granted. The
HOA immediately began appeal procedures to stop the Jews, filed a suit
requiring an Environmental Impact Statement & other interference measures.
But when the news got wind of their suit claiming even that the county had
facilitated excess freedom of religion for Jews, the HOA finally backed
off for fear of the repurcussions when the larger community became way too
aware of a band of bigots in their midst. None of their alleged reasons
for trying to stop the synogogue were ever leveled against the numerous
Christian churches around their HOA enclave. No Christian Church in the
vicinity of the HOA had ever been declared by them "detrimental to the
community" as was the synogogue.

This was not a special enclave of klansmen or avowed Christian Patriots.
These were just average normal middle class honkies who well knew (as
anyone with half an IQ point knows) that the best way to avoid ******s,
yids, ragheads, & fags is to buy into a HOA neighborhood -- you sign away
a few property rights, but look at that one & only reward! Dumbasses
couldn't even tolerate Jews even OUTSIDE but too near their neighborhood.

On the other hand there would likewise be no law against a Jewish
Homeowners Associations in whose enclave even non-observant Jews wouldn't
be permitted if that was the HOA's choice. Haven't heard of it happening,
but it would actually make sense since so many Jews do have to walk to
synogogue & must live in a single neighborhood to do so.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article , Ann
wrote:

(paghat) expounded:

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

Now you've taken this a bit over the top. This may happen in some
areas, but it certainly can't happen around here. Discrimination like
that would be all over the Boston Globe in a heartbeat. There are HOA
neighborhoods all over the ritzy-titzy towns around me, and there's
blacks, jews, arabs, whatever living in them. If this is still going
on in other parts of the country, I hope they're getting their asses
sued soundly.

See my post on basic & typical HOA behavior in declairing the only
orthodox synogogue in Marin County harmful to the HOA's way of life.

Boston is one of the most racist places on earth, & if you can name even
one HOA that is as integrated as you say, name it. I've named specific &
representative cases, they're easy to find.

I've also mentioned that a FEW of these Associations, knowing they live
under a burden of a profoundly racist heritage past AND PRESENT, do make
the extra effort to say all races are welcome (like the Miami HOA that
welcomes all races so long as they're Christian). If there's one like that
in Boston, name it. Otherwise you're blowing smoke out your hat, & if if
you check into it for the facts, you'll find that the assumptions you make
about the communities surrounding you are very likely different than you
believe.

And if the Boston Globe made racism in that city a priority for their news
coverage, they wouldn't have any room left to report anything good about
Irish Catholics.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article , Tom J
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 05:30:48 -0400, Ann wrote:

Now you've taken this a bit over the top.


NOW?!!

This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Paggers is clueless and ranting IMO.

Actually since I gave specific examples for every claim I've made -- the
Marin county HOA battle against Jews is perfectly representative; the
Placido del Mar HOA's founder explicitly banning Jews & Hindus & remaining
free of same even in 2003 -- well, what we get to see in this thread is
which ******s in this ng are closet racists. For no one who was anything
better could see documented, obvious & undeniable facts about HOAs with
examples named -- & see in that evidence of anything other than the racism
& antisemitism of HOAs -- which after all came about primarily to
circumvent the laws protecting the Civil Rights of minority populations.

Clueless category: You Tom. The facts are there. If you can't deal with
them more honestly than that, I'm left to assume you applaud the HOA
status quo, as you can no longer seriously rely on your general ignorance
as your excuse.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

In article , "Kari" wrote:


In reality, the laws and by-laws are there to support a neighborhood style
of living that others want and have pretty much established by court record.
If you don't like them, don't live there.

This is good advice. Yes, assume if you sign away property rights, SOMEone
will be on hand to make you suffer for it.

But this thread shows that a lot of people are in serious denial about the
fact that HOAs came about to circumvent the inroads of Civil Rights, NOT
because articles of incorporation were worth it merely to force the
neighbor to mow his lawn more often, because city or county ordinances
frequently sufficiently take care of the cosmetic aspects of what one must
adhere to. "Innocent" buyers should be more fully aprised of the
historical purpose, & still-strong underlying effect of HOAs, so they
don't accidentally buy into a HOA thinking the worst thing possible is
they have to mow their lawn ridiculously often, then their son marries a
Chinese woman & the shit hits the fan.

Second, some HOA neighborhoods consist of 2,000 or more homes. If you're a
Jew or Black & know those are all automatically OFF your list of safe
places to attempt to buy because nine times out of a ten it's a honky
enclave accidentally-on-purpose, you will suddenly be a little happier
that several states are right today (at least 40 years late!) finally
beginning to undermine HOAs' bigotry privileges. Yes, such people know we
wouldn't like it, & many "voluntarily" elect not to live there.

But your "right" or "option" to join a HOA where the percentage of
minorities drops dramatically (to as low as zero percent ) doesn't look so
nifty, not if the day before you went house-hunting you naively believed
that discriminatory housing policies was illegal in all cases, only to
discover a half-dozen of the surrunding neighborhoods "coincidentally"
only sell to whites & a huge percentage of houses on the market aren't for
you -- & turns out there's very little you can do about it even if you
were brave enough to force the issue & forge a path amidst all those
honkies.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/