Jump to content

Banks find loopholes to deny blacks and Latinos home loans at twice the rate of whites


IvyMgmt
 Share

The last post in this topic was posted 1644 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

 

 

The theme here is that it's based on the "location". So my neighbor owns a 600K home. I know he has a mortgage cause he's told me. He's black. SO according to "this". He moves to DC - he gets instantly denied because of the zip code, and his color? Sorry - not buying it.

Because its not true. ;)

Bingo. Mendel, as always, hits the nail on the head...

CV nailed it much earlier than me. It drives me crazy to see article that take correlation and claim causation. Articles like this also disrespect real racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First it was: "There is NO evidence that the discrimination being claimed in the article exists today. Zero, nada, zilch! Provide proof".

 

I gave you a reference to a lawsuit by a federal entity which resulted in a settlement wherein the bank has agreed to revise it's lending practices. Now it's

Since the article is not recent, its not relevant.

Im still waiting for real evidence of widespread discrimination as claimed in the article.

Edit: the example with Klein Bank doesnt prove very much. I dont think they are required to have branches anywhere, and it makes sense to target the areas where you have branches for products like mortgages.

 

What exactly is your definition of recent when it comes to case law? If you are at all indicating that your burden of proof requires a court case filed in 2018 with allegations from 2018 and preferably a judgment entered by June 8, 2018 no earlier than 2:14 PST in order to be recent enough to consider then we have nothing further to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theme here is that it's based on the "location". So my neighbor owns a 600K home. I know he has a mortgage cause he's told me. He's black. SO according to "this". He moves to DC - he gets instantly denied because of the zip code, and his color? Sorry - not buying it.

The article I posted was regarding the Department of Justice filing a lawsuit against a bank for redlining itself into a horseshoe shape in order to avoid lending to minorities. Is there something else that you are referencing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First it was: "There is NO evidence that the discrimination being claimed in the article exists today. Zero, nada, zilch! Provide proof".

 

I gave you a reference to a lawsuit by a federal entity which resulted in a settlement wherein the bank has agreed to revise it's lending practices. Now it's

Since the article is not recent, its not relevant.

 

Im still waiting for real evidence of widespread discrimination as claimed in the article.

 

Edit: the example with Klein Bank doesnt prove very much. I dont think they are required to have branches anywhere, and it makes sense to target the areas where you have branches for products like mortgages.

What exactly is your definition of recent when it comes to case law? If you are at all indicating that your burden of proof requires a court case filed in 2018 with allegations from 2018 and preferably a judgment entered by June 8, 2018 no earlier than 2:14 PST in order to be recent enough to consider then we have nothing further to discuss.

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Your posts demonstrate that you dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The theme here is that it's based on the "location". So my neighbor owns a 600K home. I know he has a mortgage cause he's told me. He's black. SO according to "this". He moves to DC - he gets instantly denied because of the zip code, and his color? Sorry - not buying it.

The article I posted was regarding the Department of Justice filing a lawsuit against a bank for redlining itself into a horseshoe shape in order to avoid lending to minorities. Is there something else that you are referencing?

I would like to comment about the DOJ during that time period, but political discussions are not allowed on CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First it was: "There is NO evidence that the discrimination being claimed in the article exists today. Zero, nada, zilch! Provide proof".

 

I gave you a reference to a lawsuit by a federal entity which resulted in a settlement wherein the bank has agreed to revise it's lending practices. Now it's

Since the article is not recent, its not relevant.

 

Im still waiting for real evidence of widespread discrimination as claimed in the article.

 

Edit: the example with Klein Bank doesnt prove very much. I dont think they are required to have branches anywhere, and it makes sense to target the areas where you have branches for products like mortgages.

What exactly is your definition of recent when it comes to case law? If you are at all indicating that your burden of proof requires a court case filed in 2018 with allegations from 2018 and preferably a judgment entered by June 8, 2018 no earlier than 2:14 PST in order to be recent enough to consider then we have nothing further to discuss.

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? Your posts demonstrate that you dont.

 

Do you understand that YOU said there was no evidence that the type of discrimination in the article existed and the Department of Justice proved you wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The theme here is that it's based on the "location". So my neighbor owns a 600K home. I know he has a mortgage cause he's told me. He's black. SO according to "this". He moves to DC - he gets instantly denied because of the zip code, and his color? Sorry - not buying it.

The article I posted was regarding the Department of Justice filing a lawsuit against a bank for redlining itself into a horseshoe shape in order to avoid lending to minorities. Is there something else that you are referencing?

I would like to comment about the DOJ during that time period, but political discussions are not allowed on CB.

 

You should feel free to discuss the terms of the settlement by which KleinBank remedied their lending practices to ensure it's mortgage lending services are made available on a non-discriminatory basis. That is fully in line with the topic of this thread and is well within CB rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's just solve this problem right now and give all minorities free housing and absolve everyone of their past sins

We apparently at least need to have affirmative action lending.

We already have that - it's called the Community Reinvestment Act. Problem solved.

 

Oh yeah - we already tried that with the free housing - Cabrini Green being one of the largest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The theme here is that it's based on the "location". So my neighbor owns a 600K home. I know he has a mortgage cause he's told me. He's black. SO according to "this". He moves to DC - he gets instantly denied because of the zip code, and his color? Sorry - not buying it.

The article I posted was regarding the Department of Justice filing a lawsuit against a bank for redlining itself into a horseshoe shape in order to avoid lending to minorities. Is there something else that you are referencing?
I would like to comment about the DOJ during that time period, but political discussions are not allowed on CB.

You should feel free to discuss the terms of the settlement by which KleinBank remedied their lending practices to ensure it's mortgage lending services are made available on a non-discriminatory basis. That is fully in line with the topic of this thread and is well within CB rules.

It is impossible without getting political.

 

Your signature told me all I need to know. Playing the victim card when not appropriate cheapens real cases of victimization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's just solve this problem right now and give all minorities free housing and absolve everyone of their past sins

 

We apparently at least need to have affirmative action lending.

 

 

That's very generous but I believe affirmative action is a political topic which is a bannable offense on CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Let's just solve this problem right now and give all minorities free housing and absolve everyone of their past sins

We apparently at least need to have affirmative action lending.

We already have that - it's called the Community Reinvestment Act. Problem solved.

 

Oh yeah - we already tried that with the free housing - Cabrini Green being one of the largest.

 

As a fellow board member and contributor to this thread, I'm offering you neighborly advice to read the rules at the top of the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible without getting political.

 

Your signature told me all I need to know. Playing the victim card when not appropriate cheapens real cases of victimization.

 

 

1. My signature is not the topic of this thread.

 

2. Which victim card was played when KleinBank remedied their lending practices to ensure it's mortgage lending services are made available on a non-discriminatory basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My skin crawls every time this topic pops back to the top of the list with a new post. It's one of those topics that, while relevant, discussion is never going to be fruitful or satisfying.

 

Fortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to take long for sensitivities to be tweaked sufficiently for the thread to be closed ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First it was: "Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago?"

 

Now its:

 

2. Requires discussing the DOJ under the previous administration.

Please put the victim card away and understand that correlation is not causation.

I only play victor cards.

 

My skin crawls every time this topic pops back to the top of the list with a new post. It's one of those topics that, while relevant, discussion is never going to be fruitful or satisfying.

 

Fortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to take long for sensitivities to be tweaked sufficiently for the thread to be closed ...

The topic is an important one for people who literally have "skin" in the game. The discussion while uncomfortable is useful because it shines a spotlight on areas in the mortgage lending industry that need improvement.

Edited by Allkindabroke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First it was: "Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago?"

 

Now its:

 

2. Requires discussing the DOJ under the previous administration.

 

Please put the victim card away and understand that correlation is not causation.

I only play victor cards.

My skin crawls every time this topic pops back to the top of the list with a new post. It's one of those topics that, while relevant, discussion is never going to be fruitful or satisfying.

 

Fortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to take long for sensitivities to be tweaked sufficiently for the thread to be closed ...

The topic is an important one for people who literally have "skin" in the game. The discussion while uncomfortable is useful because it shines a spotlight on areas in the mortgage lending industry that need improvement.

You were.

 

What victory? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First it was: "Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago?"

 

Now its:

 

2. Requires discussing the DOJ under the previous administration.

 

Please put the victim card away and understand that correlation is not causation.

I only play victor cards.

My skin crawls every time this topic pops back to the top of the list with a new post. It's one of those topics that, while relevant, discussion is never going to be fruitful or satisfying.

 

Fortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to take long for sensitivities to be tweaked sufficiently for the thread to be closed ...

The topic is an important one for people who literally have "skin" in the game. The discussion while uncomfortable is useful because it shines a spotlight on areas in the mortgage lending industry that need improvement.

You were.

 

What victory? :lol:

 

Getting at least one person in this thread to admit that they were responding to my signature and not the topic at hand.

 

Checkmate.

%E6%A3%8Bpieces-checkmate%E5%9B%BD%E7%8E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

First it was: "Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago?"

 

Now its:

 

2. Requires discussing the DOJ under the previous administration.

 

Please put the victim card away and understand that correlation is not causation.

I only play victor cards.

My skin crawls every time this topic pops back to the top of the list with a new post. It's one of those topics that, while relevant, discussion is never going to be fruitful or satisfying.

 

Fortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to take long for sensitivities to be tweaked sufficiently for the thread to be closed ...

The topic is an important one for people who literally have "skin" in the game. The discussion while uncomfortable is useful because it shines a spotlight on areas in the mortgage lending industry that need improvement.

You were.

 

What victory? :lol:

 

Getting at least one person in this thread to admit that they were responding to my signature and not the topic at hand.

 

Checkmate.

%E6%A3%8Bpieces-checkmate%E5%9B%BD%E7%8E

 

 

Lame. Nice try, though.

Edited by DigDeep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 1644 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      185056
    • Most Online
      2046

    Newest Member
    aresw
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines