Pages: 1 2

 

2010-08-11 18:15:17
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5870

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has filed a charge of housing discrimination against a Bridgeport family and a prominent realty firm for refusing to sell a million-dollar-plus home to local comedian and radio personality George Willborn and his family.

HUD alleges that Daniel and Adrienne Sabbia and their real estate agent, Jeffrey Lowe of Prudential Rubloff Properties, violated the Fair Housing Act when they discriminated against Willborn, his wife, Peytyn and their family for not following through with the sale of an amenity-filled 8,000-square-foot home at 3300 S. Normal Ave. in the Bridgeport neighborhood.

The home was listed for sale for $1.799 million and had been for sale for almost two years when the Willborns toured it in early January, according to the complaint filed with HUD's office of administrative law judges. The couple made a $1.5 million offer for the home that day and after two days of negotiation, the Willborn's accepted the $1.7 million counteroffer from the Sabbias.

However, the Sabbias never signed a sales contract and their real estate agent, Lowe, on Jan. 11 told the Willborn's agent, Dylcia Cornelious, that the Sabbias had changed their mind and were taking the home off the market.

The Willborns, who are African-American, filed a complaint with HUD Jan. 29 and   after receiving the complaint Feb. 1, HUD said the Sabbias offered to sell the home and all its furniture to the Willborns for $1.799 million. The Willborns declined.

According to the complaint, Lowe said in an interview while under oath that while he was representing the Sabbias, Daniel Sabbia told Lowe "he would prefer not to sell the home to an African-American, though he qualified the testimony, saying 'but if it was for the right price he did not care who bought the house.' "

According to HUD, Daniel Sabbia's sister and brother-in-law live next door to the home and other family members live in Bridgeport.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010 … uyers.html

That's not very nice and pretty stupid considering the price of the home but I think they have the right to sell their property to whoever they or deny the sale of their property for any reason including race.
2010-08-11 18:18:40
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5758|Ventura, California
I only read the title and your comment, as I feel it's sufficient until proven otherwise.

You can sell your possessions to whoever you want. If you don't want to sell something to somebody, that's your right. In this case I think the seller is a retard though (Keep in mind I haven't read the post, TL;DR).
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2010-08-11 18:21:08
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6785|so randum

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I only read the title and your comment, as I feel it's sufficient until proven otherwise.

You can sell your possessions to whoever you want. If you don't want to sell something to somebody, that's your right. In this case I think the seller is a retard though (Keep in mind I haven't read the post, TL;DR).
If it's proven that they don't want to sell the house to blacks (specifically), then no it's not right - it's racism.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-08-11 18:26:11
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5870

FatherTed wrote:

If it's proven that they don't want to sell the house to blacks (specifically), then no it's not right - it's racism.
You have a right to be racist. Racism is an opinion.

I still think the owner of the property has complete rights over their property and can decide who they want to or not want to sell it to for whatever reason.
2010-08-11 18:27:22
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6807|...

People let emotion bleed all over laws
2010-08-11 18:28:06
tuckergustav
...
+1,590|6198|...

Well, there may be a case since they actually said it...

Otherwise, unless they sold it to a white buyer for less, I don't see a case.  At any point until the house is closed on, you have the right to back out for any reason or no reason at all. 

But really...they are the morons that actually said they didn't want to sell the house to an African-American.  I am pretty sure they(the buyers) have grounds for a civil suit there.
...
2010-08-11 18:36:56
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA
People are racist.  Its not illegal to be racist.  Its Free Speech for the white homeowners to sell to whomever they want.  I'm not surprised the ACLU wasn't involved in this.

Unless the white home owners had some kind of binding contract with their federally substidized loan I don't think the Federal Government has a case.  However, HUD will have unlimited amounts of money to sue vs. the white homeowners.

I wonder if there were competing bids and a black person undercut someone else and didn't get the home if the black person could still sue?

I didn't know there were any laws for selling your home?  You could sell it to whomever for any reason as far as I'm concerned.

This case is disturbing because of its implications.
2010-08-11 18:39:12
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6785|so randum

Harmor wrote:

People are racist. Its not illegal to be racist.  Its Free Speech for the white homeowners to sell to whomever they want.  I'm not surprised the ACLU wasn't involved in this.

Unless the white home owners had some kind of binding contract with their federally substidized loan I don't think the Federal Government has a case.  However, HUD will have unlimited amounts of money to sue vs. the white homeowners.

I wonder if there were competing bids and a black person undercut someone else and didn't get the home if the black person could still sue?

I didn't know there were any laws for selling your home?  You could sell it to whomever for any reason as far as I'm concerned.

This case is disturbing because of its implications.
Is it not illegal to refuse a sale or service on the grounds of race? if this were a private sale then it's probably not illegal (although in poor taste) but if this was on the open market...
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-08-11 18:45:57
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA

FatherTed wrote:

Is it not illegal to refuse a sale or service on the grounds of race? if this were a private sale then it's probably not illegal (although in poor taste) but if this was on the open market...
I don't understand why there would be a difference?  Unless the white homeowner had something in their loan contract that said they could not discriminate against people when they eventually sell their home then, as far as I'm concerned, the white homeowners can be racist (and stupid).

What power does the federal government have dictate whom a private citizen can sell their private property to?
2010-08-11 19:12:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

tuckergustav wrote:

Well, there may be a case since they actually said it...

Otherwise, unless they sold it to a white buyer for less, I don't see a case.  At any point until the house is closed on, you have the right to back out for any reason or no reason at all. 

But really...they are the morons that actually said they didn't want to sell the house to an African-American.  I am pretty sure they(the buyers) have grounds for a civil suit there.
Let's be real here. I'm sure their neighbors were shitting down their throats about selling the home to a black couple. We're talking lily white Bridgeport here, the home of the hedge fund and the insurance industry. If they had sold their home to a black couple they would've been socially ostracized for life. Is that racist? Absolutely.

But is it really any different from a housing community discriminating based on social class? The housing communities I speak of would never sell a home to a redneck out of fear he'd have a car up on blocks in his driveway and a confederate flag hanging from his home. Maintaining and increasing property values is paramount to these communities, the same as it is for the couple and their neighbors in Bridgeport.

Do I condone the behavior of the couple? No. Do I understand it? Yes. Frankly, the government shouldn't even be involved because the government should have zero say in private transactions. No contract was signed so it doesn't matter if they pulled the offer back based on race, social class, the persons last name or a damn mole on the homebuyers cheek. It doesn't matter what the reason is.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-11 19:17:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6936|USA

FatherTed wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I only read the title and your comment, as I feel it's sufficient until proven otherwise.

You can sell your possessions to whoever you want. If you don't want to sell something to somebody, that's your right. In this case I think the seller is a retard though (Keep in mind I haven't read the post, TL;DR).
If it's proven that they don't want to sell the house to blacks (specifically), then no it's not right - it's racism.
So, since when is being a racist against the law?
2010-08-11 19:20:07
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6785|so randum

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I only read the title and your comment, as I feel it's sufficient until proven otherwise.

You can sell your possessions to whoever you want. If you don't want to sell something to somebody, that's your right. In this case I think the seller is a retard though (Keep in mind I haven't read the post, TL;DR).
If it's proven that they don't want to sell the house to blacks (specifically), then no it's not right - it's racism.
So, since when is being a racist against the law?
read the other post i made, it's worded slightly better.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-08-11 19:23:36
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6959|Canberra, AUS

FatherTed wrote:

Harmor wrote:

People are racist. Its not illegal to be racist.  Its Free Speech for the white homeowners to sell to whomever they want.  I'm not surprised the ACLU wasn't involved in this.

Unless the white home owners had some kind of binding contract with their federally substidized loan I don't think the Federal Government has a case.  However, HUD will have unlimited amounts of money to sue vs. the white homeowners.

I wonder if there were competing bids and a black person undercut someone else and didn't get the home if the black person could still sue?

I didn't know there were any laws for selling your home?  You could sell it to whomever for any reason as far as I'm concerned.

This case is disturbing because of its implications.
Is it not illegal to refuse a sale or service on the grounds of race? if this were a private sale then it's probably not illegal (although in poor taste) but if this was on the open market...

JohnG@lt wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Well, there may be a case since they actually said it...

Otherwise, unless they sold it to a white buyer for less, I don't see a case.  At any point until the house is closed on, you have the right to back out for any reason or no reason at all. 

But really...they are the morons that actually said they didn't want to sell the house to an African-American.  I am pretty sure they(the buyers) have grounds for a civil suit there.
Let's be real here. I'm sure their neighbors were shitting down their throats about selling the home to a black couple. We're talking lily white Bridgeport here, the home of the hedge fund and the insurance industry. If they had sold their home to a black couple they would've been socially ostracized for life. Is that racist? Absolutely.

But is it really any different from a housing community discriminating based on social class? The housing communities I speak of would never sell a home to a redneck out of fear he'd have a car up on blocks in his driveway and a confederate flag hanging from his home. Maintaining and increasing property values is paramount to these communities, the same as it is for the couple and their neighbors in Bridgeport.

Do I condone the behavior of the couple? No. Do I understand it? Yes. Frankly, the government shouldn't even be involved because the government should have zero say in private transactions. No contract was signed so it doesn't matter if they pulled the offer back based on race, social class, the persons last name or a damn mole on the homebuyers cheek. It doesn't matter what the reason is.
Nothing to add to these two posts.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-08-11 19:26:17
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5870

Spark wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Harmor wrote:

People are racist. Its not illegal to be racist.  Its Free Speech for the white homeowners to sell to whomever they want.  I'm not surprised the ACLU wasn't involved in this.

Unless the white home owners had some kind of binding contract with their federally substidized loan I don't think the Federal Government has a case.  However, HUD will have unlimited amounts of money to sue vs. the white homeowners.

I wonder if there were competing bids and a black person undercut someone else and didn't get the home if the black person could still sue?

I didn't know there were any laws for selling your home?  You could sell it to whomever for any reason as far as I'm concerned.

This case is disturbing because of its implications.
Is it not illegal to refuse a sale or service on the grounds of race? if this were a private sale then it's probably not illegal (although in poor taste) but if this was on the open market...

JohnG@lt wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Well, there may be a case since they actually said it...

Otherwise, unless they sold it to a white buyer for less, I don't see a case.  At any point until the house is closed on, you have the right to back out for any reason or no reason at all. 

But really...they are the morons that actually said they didn't want to sell the house to an African-American.  I am pretty sure they(the buyers) have grounds for a civil suit there.
Let's be real here. I'm sure their neighbors were shitting down their throats about selling the home to a black couple. We're talking lily white Bridgeport here, the home of the hedge fund and the insurance industry. If they had sold their home to a black couple they would've been socially ostracized for life. Is that racist? Absolutely.

But is it really any different from a housing community discriminating based on social class? The housing communities I speak of would never sell a home to a redneck out of fear he'd have a car up on blocks in his driveway and a confederate flag hanging from his home. Maintaining and increasing property values is paramount to these communities, the same as it is for the couple and their neighbors in Bridgeport.

Do I condone the behavior of the couple? No. Do I understand it? Yes. Frankly, the government shouldn't even be involved because the government should have zero say in private transactions. No contract was signed so it doesn't matter if they pulled the offer back based on race, social class, the persons last name or a damn mole on the homebuyers cheek. It doesn't matter what the reason is.
Nothing to add to these two posts.
FatherTed's post didn't make any sense though...
2010-08-11 19:27:47
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6785|so randum
yeah they tend not to in d&st, d/w.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-08-11 19:33:19
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6959|Canberra, AUS
I thought it did, it was pretty clear - private market, poor taste but fine, public market, not so sure about that.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-08-11 19:34:19
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom
if the realty company conducted business outside of the that specific area the government can step in.


i think
Tu Stultus Es
2010-08-11 19:44:07
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA
Does that mean a white car owner can't sell their car to a black person who makes a bid on it?
2010-08-14 12:13:46
oChaos.Haze
Member
+90|6723
If the price they asked for was met, then the ONLY reason I can see that they wouldn't sell would be to, as Galt said, neighborhood pressures.  I mean if you're getting paid and leaving, why would you care?

edit -
'but if it was for the right price he did not care who bought the house.'
Now that should be illegal.  Charging different prices based off of race?  I mean come on here...

Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2010-08-14 12:16:09)

2010-08-14 12:20:37
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6853|Mountains of NC

with todays market .... should have sold and ran


but .... do what ever they want to do with that property ............ they own it
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
2010-08-14 12:23:09
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7056|PNW

1) However, the Sabbias never signed a sales contract and their real estate agent, Lowe, on Jan. 11 told the Willborn's agent, Dylcia Cornelious, that the Sabbias had changed their mind and were taking the home off the market.

[...]

2) According to the complaint, Lowe said in an interview while under oath that while he was representing the Sabbias, Daniel Sabbia told Lowe "he would prefer not to sell the home to an African-American, though he qualified the testimony, saying 'but if it was for the right price he did not care who bought the house.' "
1) Seemed reasonable, until I read 2).

Seriously? Sabbia should have kept his mouth shut about his reason for taking the place off the market. Unless he wanted a legal headache...
2010-08-14 13:24:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Well, there may be a case since they actually said it...

Otherwise, unless they sold it to a white buyer for less, I don't see a case.  At any point until the house is closed on, you have the right to back out for any reason or no reason at all. 

But really...they are the morons that actually said they didn't want to sell the house to an African-American.  I am pretty sure they(the buyers) have grounds for a civil suit there.
Let's be real here. I'm sure their neighbors were shitting down their throats about selling the home to a black couple. We're talking lily white Bridgeport here, the home of the hedge fund and the insurance industry. If they had sold their home to a black couple they would've been socially ostracized for life. Is that racist? Absolutely.

But is it really any different from a housing community discriminating based on social class? The housing communities I speak of would never sell a home to a redneck out of fear he'd have a car up on blocks in his driveway and a confederate flag hanging from his home. Maintaining and increasing property values is paramount to these communities, the same as it is for the couple and their neighbors in Bridgeport.

Do I condone the behavior of the couple? No. Do I understand it? Yes. Frankly, the government shouldn't even be involved because the government should have zero say in private transactions. No contract was signed so it doesn't matter if they pulled the offer back based on race, social class, the persons last name or a damn mole on the homebuyers cheek. It doesn't matter what the reason is.
Pretty much..  although I do have to say that current laws do prohibit discriminating against race when selling property.  The reasoning behind the law might not be the best, but as long as it's on the books, it has to be enforced.
2010-08-14 17:14:29
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much..  although I do have to say that current laws do prohibit discriminating against race when selling property.  The reasoning behind the law might not be the best, but as long as it's on the books, it has to be enforced.
Unless the law is deemed unconstitutional.
2010-08-14 19:57:53
Karbin
Member
+42|6579

Harmor wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much..  although I do have to say that current laws do prohibit discriminating against race when selling property.  The reasoning behind the law might not be the best, but as long as it's on the books, it has to be enforced.
Unless the law is deemed unconstitutional.
Not a chance.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment.
this case falls under the "Equal Protection" clause.
" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Check out:
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
Justice Lewis Powell, writing for the Court, stated, "Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

It'll be a interesting court case no matter what side you pick
2010-08-14 21:32:41
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA
So the question unanswered for me is the act of private citizen selling their home "within its jurisdiction" of HUD?

Extending that is selling your car with the jurisdiction of the DMV?

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard