Prior
to the current mortgage crisis, the median wealth of a White
family was $88,000.00, the median wealth of a Black family was
$5,900.00. The forthcoming evidence proving the Federal Governments’
role in producing this startling statistic will be overshadowed
by the controversy over the truthful statements of Rev. Jeremiah
Wright and subsequent division in the Black community over color
blindness and culpability. It appears the color blind faction
will prevail as their membership explodes with the congregants
from the churches of Obama, Davis, Booker, Patrick and other
Ivy-league preachers. Members are being baptized in droves.
Never in the history of the Black community have we seen so
many answer the call to hope, with all supplicants expressing
faithfulness and devotion to the color blind ideology.
The
flock has been unwittingly seduced into believing America has abruptly become an egalitarian society.
Thus, rendering the sacrifices made by the Jeremiah Wrights,
Dr. Kings, Messrs. Garvey, Delaney, Vessey, Turner, and brave
women like Truth, Tubman, Wells, Haimer and Parks almost meaningless.
Yes, meaningless. Membership in this neo-color blind club prohibits
members from speaking of America’s past sins. Violation
of this tenet is banishment and the inglorious label of being
old, angry and irrelevant. But what is really disturbing about
this issue, the color blind faction has moved into the phase
of race relations that are replete with the same characteristics
that have defined America since 1789 - denial, delusion and hypocrisy.
Denial
of one’s history, culture, ancestry and America’s
past sins is a bit much to join some club, albeit an exclusive
one. This is no less than an abomination or blasphemy. One of
the greatest hoaxes in America’s history is the lie we learned in public
school called American History and now those advocates of color
blind politics want you to abruptly step into a disinfected
society by denying any of the terror and mayhem against Blacks
in America has taken place. If today’s generation
cannot speak of it in public, tomorrow’s generation will know
only the antiseptic history taught in public schools. A democratic
nomination is not worth it due to the limited economic benefits
the Black community can expect to receive for such a tradeoff.
We drank the kool aide en masse several times before. Let us
not do it again. Think of the number of Blacks who are rotting
away in prison because of their alleged crimes. But you will
swing open the pearly gates for America before she confesses her sins?
America should pay for her sins just as America forced Belgium,
Germany,
Switzerland, Japan
and South
Africa to pay reparations for their crimes
and oppression of various minorities. I know the response, “we
have tried to make America pay reparations”. I agree, we have tried
but our efforts were based upon a legal theory America is prepared to defeat
each time we go into the courtroom. The challenge to any Black
legal scholar is to go beyond where you are today in your thinking
about reparations. Just as Charles Houston persevered until
he was able to have the Supreme Court declare restrictive covenants
unconstitutional, legal theorists must be willing to step outside
their comfort level to prove America has a debt to Blacks in
this country and she cannot simply ignore this debt by asking
at a convenient time for Black people to become color blind.
And those who strongly believe America
is culpable will support your efforts because there are some
morally upright citizens who do not want America
to get into heaven without confessing her sins.
Economic
injustice and discrimination against Blacks date back to the
beginning of America and continues through
today. A prime example of economic discrimination is the subprime
mortgage debacle. The predictable response is, “the subprime
crisis affected people across all color lines”. That is true
but it disproportionately impacted Blacks. In Prince Georges
County, Maryland, improperly called the wealthiest Black county
in America,
there were twice the number of foreclosures as any other county
in Maryland. Why was
this particular county so vulnerable to subprime lending?
My
argument is that we can look at any point along the continuum
since the ratification of the constitution and observe economic
discrimination against Blacks. Notwithstanding the spiritual
argument, why do proponents of reparations and legal scholars
restrict their advocacy
to the period of enslavement? Reparations for lost wages due
to slavery are problematic for several reasons. The slavery
issue is too emotionally charged for either side (Black or White)
to discuss civilly or in a manner that will lead to meaningful
results. Moreover, you witnessed the vilification of Rev. Wright
when he spoke of America’s more recent transgressions.
Imagine what would happen if one presented an argument as distant
as the slavery issue. Also, many Americans actually believe
the blood of Union and Confederate soldiers
cleansed the sin of slavery.
From
a legal point of view, the following are some of the reasons
courts have refused to grant plaintiffs reparations based upon
what occurred during slavery (lost wages and unjust enrichment).
The courts have consistently cited three reasons why Blacks
are unable to receive reparations: 1) statute of limitations;
2) political question; and 3) causation. Any of the three barriers
is a reason to dismiss a case but the strong cases generally
will overcome two of the three challenges. According to one
reparation attorney, the statute of limitation hurdle will be
difficult to overcome and depending on the defendant, causation
may present a challenge.
1.
Statute of limitations: Courts
have said too much time has elapse between the time the injury
occurred and filing of the suit.
2.
Political question: In our
system of jurisprudence there is a theory that some issues are
outside the scope/purview of the court and the issues are best
resolved by the executive and/or legislative branches of government.
The courts have concluded reparations/slavery is one of those
issues.
3.
Causation: A sometimes dubious
and vague concept but succinctly, it is the relationship or
behavior between the accused and the aggrieved. In the last
reparation case the court said the plaintiff failed to show
a relationship between the injury and the behavior of the defendants.
Outside
the context of slavery, there were many other instances of economic
discrimination that led to the conditions of wealth disparity
we have today. We can start with the land grant of 1785 whereby
the government sold land for the purchase price of $1.00 an
acre with a minimum of 640 acres. Or the land grant of 1862
which required grantees to farm the land for 1 year. Blacks
were excluded from these allocations of resources that later
turned out to be a foundation for wealth creation for many American
citizens. More recently, Blacks were excluded from one of the
most robust wealth building activities in the history of America. From 1932-1968, Blacks
were systematically excluded, by governmental regulations and
policy, from housing and banking programs created to revitalize
an economy that had been wrecked by the Great Depression. The
Federal Government allocated $450 billion to White Americans
through housing and related subsidies but less than 2% of that
amount was distributed to Blacks. If you believe this information
is old and irrelevant, you will never understand or have the
ability to accurately explain why the median wealth of a White
family is almost 14 times that of a Black family.
Most
of the wealth families have (excluding those in the upper income
bracket) is in the equity found in their homes. Homeownership
was greatly expanded from 1934-1968. However, the policies of
the federal government through the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) prevented
Blacks from purchasing homes or equally as oppressive, enforced
policies that dictated where Blacks could purchase homes. The
government, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution, provided a benefit to Whites through very liberal
housing policies while impeding Blacks from accessing the same
benefits.
Prior
to 1934, borrowers had to put 60% or greater down to purchase
a home. So if a home cost $5,000.00 the borrower had to put
$3,000.00 down. The remaining balance of $2,000.00 was an interest-only
loan for 3-5 years. This made homeownership unaffordable to
many citizens as well as economically imprudent. As an interest-only
product, the loan did not amortize and at the end of the term
there was a balloon payment of $2,000 plus cost, before the
borrower could take title (ownership). If the borrower could
not pay the $2,000-plus, the other option was to refinance and
start the cycle over again. The risk to the borrower in this
type of transaction was, they could be in the cycle for years.
An unforeseen event could occurred (job loss, illness, etc.)
and the bank could called in the loan. All the money paid on
the property would be lost, along with the home. This type of
transaction was common prior to FHA and FHLLBB. However in 1934,
Congress passed the National Housing Act, which created the
FHA, to implement a housing program that would stimulate the
economy after the depression. FHA guidelines required a 20%
down payment with the loan to be paid over 20 years at a fixed
interest rate. More importantly, after 20 years the home was
paid off.
These
changes made homeownership affordable as well as a great investment.
Homeownership in 1900 stood at 46.5%. Thirty years later in
1930 the rate was 47.8%. The increase was only 1.3% but if you
look at the next 30 years, by 1960 the homeownership rate was
61.9%, an increase of 13.1%. At no other time in the history
of this country, during a 30 year span, has there been such
a significant increase in the homeownership rate. Even with
the introduction of exotic financial products during the last
decade, the homeownership rate since 1960 has only increased
by 7%.
Unquestionably,
the amazing growth in homeownership during this period (1934-68)
had its origins in the shift of housing and banking policies.
Similar to what we witnessed during the housing bubble from
2002-2006, there was a change in the underwriting guidelines
in 1934 which made homeownership accessible. But unlike this
recent housing bubble, the explosive growth in homeownership
experienced immediately after the depression was putrefied with
Jim Crow. To be continued.
BlackCommentator.com Guest Commentator, Lloyd Wynn was a
consultant in the secondary market. Lloyd is the author of Residential Real Estate Finance: From
Application Through Settlement. Click
here to contact Lloyd Wynn.