7 Comments

Once again, an ethnic generality is fine when used to defend the ethnic group, bad otherwise.

“We all know who paints their homes tropical colors” is perfectly acceptable coming from Ms. Villafranca. But it would be racist for me to say that “we all know who parks nine cars in front of a single family home” by way of seeking a limitation on that.

And once again, the supposed value of “diversity” butts up against community standards. We can have one or the other, but not both. If you’re actually going to claim that an otherwise neutral regulation is ‘de facto’ discriminatory, you’re essentially locking down, for legal purposes, a racial or ethnic generality. Why, then, couldn’t whites claim that a scheme allowing for neon green houses discriminates against THEM because their traditional tastes run to brick, white and brown? Or that the police failure to turn down extremely loud “salsa” music isn’t just a general nuisiance, it’s actually RACIAL DISCRIMINATION because that music jars the ears of a white Bach fan?

Allowing something, as in your two examples cannot be discriminatory as it maintains the status before regulation. Forbidding something as the proposed painting restrictions would could be discriminatory.

It is obvious in most cities that have ethnic neighborhoods that the housing styles & colors differ between them. Noticing a fact in front of one does not constitute dicrimination (although it may not be “PC”). But a regulation forbidding paint colors common in just one of those neighborhoods would be de facto discrimination even if not so intended.

And your example of police failing to turn down loud salsa music is only discriminatory if they do turn down other genres of music. To my ears a loud Wagnerian opera or Loud Gangsta Rap is more offensive than Loud Salsa – but if there’s a noise ordinance on the books it’s the decibel level that matters and it should be enforced equally.

enough alredy… check their immigrant status too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Timothy E. Harris said:

“Allowing something, as in your two examples cannot be discriminatory as it maintains the status before regulation. Forbidding something as the proposed painting restrictions would could be discriminatory.”

Uh huh. So if statistics have one racial or ethnic group committing crime at far higher rates than another, it’s “discriminatory” to fight crime. I jest, but I realize this is a serious argument made by the left.

I could argue from two ramparts here: one, by defending the right of reasonable regulation, which I realize has the potential to run afoul of libertarian sensibilities. But I think even a libertarian could see the folly of the criminal-law-as-discrimination point. Or two, I could argue that if regulation or other government power is “discriminatory” and should be avoided, I could come up with a litany of reasons why disfavored racial or ethnic groups are discriminated against by regulations beyond house colors. In other words, if Hispanics should be free to paint their houses garish colors, why shouldn’t whites be free not to fund the public hospitals and emergency rooms frequented by the (mostly Hispanic) illegal aliens who use their services without paying? And so on.

So is any building code or restrictive covenant now safe?
Building codes that permit anything but ranch style homes clearly are designed to restrict the housing choices of the mobility impaired. Required greenspace in the form of lawns and trees offend sufferers of various pollen allergies. Laws regarding public noise nuisance clearly discriminate against the hearing impaired.

I thought colorful houses were the sign of Ukrainians…At least in the Prairie Provinces they are.

Sorry, derek, but a federal judge has enjoined Farmer’s Branch from enforcing an ordinance requiring landlords to check immigration status. (Can someone explain to me why it is unconstitutional for Farmers Branch or Doylestown PA to enforce ordinances requiring such checks, while it is fine for “sanctuary” cities to prohibit such checks?).
Back to subject. Ordinances or covenants that prohibit bright colors are just fine so long as they act prospectively. My understanding is that the Farmers Branch ordinance acts retroactively. Seems to me that at the minimum this is a “taking.”