Ben Carson’s appointment to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development likely would mean trouble for President Obama’s new housing diversity rule and would put a noted skeptic of many government anti-poverty programs in control of many of them.
President-elect Trump on Monday named his one-time presidential rival as his nominee to lead HUD, which will leave many housing advocates to wonder what the famed former neurosurgeon’s agenda is, given that he has no record on housing-related issues.
Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the choice of Carson would be “surprising, given his apparent lack of experience with or knowledge of the programs he would oversee.”
But Carson has made his feelings clear on one politically sensitive topic, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule finalized by Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro.
The rule, meant to implement the 1968 Fair Housing Act, is intended to promote diversity across municipalities and counties by comparing levels of inclusion and diversity.
In a 2015 Washington Times op-ed, however, Carson described the rule as an example of “government-engineered attempts to legislate racial equality” bound to fail and compared it to unsuccessful busing efforts in the 1970s and 1980s.
Although his views on the numerous other housing programs that HUD runs remain a mystery, Carson’s opposition to the fair housing rule has provided some optimism to HUD critics.
“We may well see a rollback of AFFH rules,” said Michael Maharrey, communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, a group opposed to the rule. “But what it will really mean in practice is anybody’s guess.”
Several localities have refused to comply with the rule, meaning that they have had to give up other HUD funds.
While Carson and other conservative critics have said that the rule amounts to social engineering, local executives interviewed by the Washington Examiner cited other reasons to be wary of it. Especially in conservative areas, including red counties in Colorado and Kansas, in which there is already a sense that Washington is overstepping its authority, officials are unwilling to follow the rule, even at the price of losing federal funds, when they don’t know what compliance entails and are sure that it would mean ceding some local control to the federal government.
In a statement released separately by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Yentel defended the rule. “Ultimately, fair housing means all families, including the poorest ones, are able to choose the neighborhoods in which to live based on what’s best for themselves and their families.” she said, later adding that this “goal — and the affirmatively furthering fair housing rule as a means to achieve it — should fit squarely within President-elect Trump’s urban revitalization plan.”
In his presidential run and in his writings, Carson has expressed the view that government programs and rules are a poor substitute for personal responsibility or are even counterproductive.
“I have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them,” Carson said at a National Urban League Conference in 2015, explaining his assessment of anti-poverty programs. “I have a strong desire, however, to provide a ladder to get people out of dependency so that they become part of the fabric of America.”
Congressional Republicans also have staked out opposition to the HUD rule. The House has voted for legislation, authored by Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., that would eliminate the rule.
