HISTORICALLY RACE AND DISCRIMINATION WAS AN INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE IN THE USA

Black Lives Matter movement, in some opinions, is a distraction from the real underlining issues of sustainable quality of life. If all people had "EQUAL" access to affordable housing, we together as one in society could then focus on family, work, relations, community, and happiness. Is it fair that we allow foreign countries and investment groups to own land in USA and force specific socioeconomic groups to then depend on the government for handouts?

Historically, Blacks are among one of the most "Institutionally" targeted races for discrimination in the housing industry beginning when the FHA began subsidizing housing after WWII.

1. Historical Redlining Practices: Redlining was a discriminatory practice that originated in the 1930s and was officially sanctioned by the federal government through agencies like the Homeowners' Loan Corporation (HOLC). Neighborhoods were rated based on racial demographics, and areas with predominantly Black populations were often marked as high-risk, making it difficult for residents to secure loans or access favorable mortgage terms.

2. Systemic Disinvestment: Redlining led to systemic disinvestment in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Financial institutions, influenced by redlining maps, were less likely to provide loans or invest in infrastructure development in these areas. This resulted in a lack of resources, diminished property values, and limited economic opportunities for residents.

3. Generational Wealth Disparities: Redlining had long-lasting effects on generational wealth accumulation. Denied access to homeownership and favorable mortgage rates, Black families were hindered in building equity through property ownership, contributing to the persistent wealth gap between Black and white Americans.

4. Continued Segregation: The legacy of redlining contributes to ongoing racial segregation in housing. The initial categorization of neighborhoods based on race led to the concentration of poverty in predominantly Black areas, perpetuating social and economic disparities.

5. Legal Reforms and Lingering Effects: While redlining itself has been officially outlawed, its effects persist. Discrimination in housing, mortgage lending, and property valuation continues to be a challenge. Laws such as the Fair Housing Act have been enacted to address these issues, but disparities persist in the form of discriminatory lending practices, gentrification, and unequal access to housing resources.

We need to take the discussion of racism out of the conversation today and address the cause-and-effect relationships between X and Y of home ownership. If interest rates were fair for 1st time buyers (Fed Supported), and homes were affordable by disallowing major corporations from buying homes with cash and then remove that home from the owner market by turning it into a rental (supply and demand), then the prices of existing homes should remain lower (affordability), and all persons of any background can yield the benefits of ownership (equity growth, if paid off, more cashflow for health care, education, and expenditures that support local companies). If we keep addressing the historical context of redlining as a primary argument, we become segregated, and nothing gets done. However, with the Cause-and-Effect approach, then we can avoid the "Us vs. Them" arguments. This is crucial for dismantling institutional racism in the housing sector without bringing in race.

Many housing policies unjustly devalued homes, resulting in disparities in home equity and hindering fair access to home ownership for citizens and working immigrants alike. The following is to simply help us open a new dialogue and how we must learn from the past. The ramifications of said policies impacted society and our basic human rights for happiness.

History of Foreign ownership of land in the United States

Foreign ownership of land in the United States has been a topic of interest for both state and federal lawmakers. Let’s delve into the timeline and details:

1. Historical Context:

   • In the 1970s, the U.S. enacted a law that restricts non-resident aliens from purchasing farmland specifically for agricultural purposes. However, they are allowed to buy less than 320 acres of land for other purposes, such as building or development1.

2. Recent State Legislation:

   • Between January and June 2023, at least 15 states enacted legislation regulating foreign ownership of real property. These states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Virginia2.

   • The laws vary in their approaches and requirements. Some mandate disclosure of foreign ownership, while others directly prohibit certain transactions. Restrictions may apply to agricultural land, land near military installations, or all real property within the state. The groups subject to these restrictions also differ, ranging from specific countries to all non-U.S. citizens.

3. Federal Rules:

   • In 2019, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) proposed rules governing foreign acquisition and ownership of real estate. These rules have implications for both purchasers and potential landlords to the federal government.

4. Growing Concerns:

   • Foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land doubled from 2009 to 2019, raising concerns about food supply security. Policymakers are closely monitoring these trends.

In summary, while there are restrictions and regulations, foreign ownership of U.S. land remains a complex and evolving issue. Each state and federal framework has its own nuances and considerations.