By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Pennsylvania State Representative Ben Waxman introduced a bill to ensure that discriminatory housing developments, such as the whites-only community Return to the Land, are explicitly illegal in the state. The bill is a response to Return to the Land’s efforts to revive segregated housing, which, according to some legal experts, may violate the Fair Housing Act. Waxman’s bill aims to prevent any ambiguity by clarifying that the “private club” exemption does not apply to organizations that discriminate based on race, color, national origin, or ancestry, thereby closing potential loopholes. While current law prohibits racial discrimination in housing, the legislation seeks to reinforce this and eliminate any room for misinterpretation.
Read the original article here
A whites-only, no-Jews community says it’s found a legal loophole.
The heart of the matter seems to be a group carving out a space for themselves, explicitly excluding both people of color and Jewish people. They’re trying to establish a community based on these exclusionary principles, which immediately triggers alarm bells for anyone familiar with civil rights and the long fight against discrimination. The core issue is not necessarily about them living in isolation, but about the specific discriminatory basis upon which they’re doing so.
This group claims to operate as a “private club” to sidestep anti-discrimination laws. They argue they aren’t selling real estate, but offering something akin to membership, thereby evading the established legal precedents against housing discrimination. However, their official documents appear to contradict this claim, which is a key point in understanding the potential illegality of their actions. Essentially, the claim of “private club” status is being used as a shield to perpetuate segregation, echoing tactics used in the past to maintain racial divides. This is where the supposed “loophole” comes in, or rather, where they *think* it is, and where the legal challenge lies.
The response from a Jewish lawmaker in Pennsylvania is understandable. This individual’s intent is to close this perceived loophole and challenge the community’s exclusionary practices. The lawmaker, quite reasonably, sees this as a direct challenge to the principles of equality and fairness. They are trying to ensure that established civil rights laws are upheld.
The issue touches on fundamental questions about property rights and discrimination. While property owners generally have rights, those rights are constrained by laws designed to prevent discrimination, especially when the property is being offered to the public or functioning in a manner that impacts the broader community. The legal debate will center on whether this group is acting as private landowners, exercising their individual choices, or operating in a way that constitutes a business or offering of services, therefore subject to non-discrimination laws.
One thing is very clear: this isn’t just a matter of personal preference; it’s a deliberate act of exclusion. This is a very sensitive issue that carries historical weight. The very concept of “whites-only” and exclusion based on religion immediately evokes painful memories and associations.
It’s tempting to see this as some isolated, fringe group. However, the potential impact extends beyond their specific location. The legal outcome could set a precedent that influences how similar situations are handled, thus impacting housing and community development across the country.
The underlying frustration is understandable: This is seen as a way for a group to essentially recreate segregation under a new guise. It’s a direct challenge to the progress made in combating housing discrimination. The proposed response from the Jewish lawmaker, and the legal battle that would inevitably follow, are aimed at preventing such a regression.
Many people think this attempt is doomed to fail. It’s likely that this community may not flourish or even survive, given its restrictive nature. It also could be financially unsustainable. There is also the potential for internal strife within the community. But the most important point is that the attempt to create a whites-only, no-Jews community is morally reprehensible and legally dubious.
The argument revolves around the definition of “private.” Can a group effectively operate a quasi-business while claiming to be “private” to avoid anti-discrimination laws? That’s where the courts will have to weigh in. It’s a complex intersection of property rights, civil rights, and the legal definition of what constitutes a business open to the public versus a truly private association.
The broader implications are clear: this situation highlights the continuing challenges in dismantling systemic discrimination and the need for vigilance in protecting civil rights.