Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Every county recorder in California will establish a program to identify and redact unlawfully restrictive covenants from the state’s real The post California law requiring removal of racial ...
In endorsing Proposition 14, the Los Angeles Times stated: "One of man’s most ancient rights in a free society is the privilege of using and disposing of his private property in whatever manner he deems appropriate." The editorial further stated: "But we do feel, and strongly, that housing equality cannot safely be achieved at the expense of ...
Also, restrictive zoning regulations have made the approval process for development more arduous and extensive. The increased bureaucracy and red tape has meant that developers now encounter a myriad of fees for variance (land use) , a building permit , a certificate of occupancy , a filing (legal) cost, special permits and planned-unit ...
In the 1940s, 80% of property outside of the inner-city limits was controlled by racially restrictive covenants, barring Black families from buying homes in these neighborhoods. In the 1950s, landlords continued to refuse to rent to Black people, or charged them significantly higher rent than they charged white people.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927. [13] In 1948, the United States Supreme Court ruled that enforcement of racial restrictive covenants was unconstitutional. 1953: Housing In August 1953, the first black family moved into Trumbull Park, a formerly all-white project of the Chicago Housing Authority.
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.. The case arose after an African-American family purchased a house in St. Louis that was subject to a restrictive covenant preventing "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property.
Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. [1]