Here is an article containing a study of just one county in Seattle, Washington.
414 racially restrictive deeds and covenants were found. These apply to whole neighborhoods, sections, or subdivisions, which means we’re talking about considerably more than 414 individual property parcels. The article also says that it wasn’t until 2006 that:
An article on the passage of that law begins:
Well, Zoe? How’s your thinking now?
And here’s a map of Chicago, showing that in 1947, about the entire South Side had restrictive covenants:
That would include the Kenwood neighborhood, according to that map. So odds are that that clause was in the deed for President Obama’s house.
I seriously doubt that. If that were true, somebody would have found it during the election.
Kenwood did have restrictive racial covenants, though. That was what led to the Hansberry v Lee case
Not disputing that, I just think that if it were still in Obama’s own deed, somebody would have dug it up. I’m sure Hillary’s and McCain’s research teams must have combed through every document he ever signed.
Can’t see how that would be a winner for them. Especially if they had the same covenant in some properties they owned (dunno if they did or not…just saying).
I don’t see it as a winner either – clearly Obama’s ownership would illustrate the nullity of such a clause. What would the message be? If McCain or Clinton had owned such a property, they might have been dinged from the Zoes of the world, but Obama’s ownership wouldn’t say anything at all.
Now, if someone else had attacked McCain or Clinton with that info, then Obama’s similar situation would have taken the sting out of it. But I think, Zoe notwithstanding, that most people today have only to look around their own neighborhood to understand that such clauses are of no effect whatsoever.
So I have no idea if Obama’s Chicago residence has such a clause, but I don’t believe we can conclude from the lack of news about it that it doesn’t exist.
Not to mention that it wouldn’t make sense to fault Obama, a Black man, for living in a Black (or at least racially mixed) neighborhood where Blacks supposedly aren’t allowed to buy property. If anything, it would show the absurdity of claiming that these laws mean anything these days.
Nah. There would be enough “deeders” or “covenanters” out there who would manufacture some outrage. He’s a hypocrite!
I’m going mark this thread as a failed experiment. Staying on topic has proven too difficult.
I apologize for my lose definitions but feel no matter how well worded and how well defined the rules of the thread were we’d have ended with similar results.
I appreciated most elucidator’s quotes throughout the thread. While he is often to wordy for my taste but I enjoyed his insight.
Thank you all for participating.