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

[mendelssohn]

 

 

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.

[Allkindabroke]

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.

[Allkindabroke]

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?

[IndyPoolPlayer]

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

[mendelssohn]

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.

[mendelssohn]

 

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.

[Allkindabroke]

 

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?

[mendelssohn]

Read previous comment on DOJ. No, that doesnt backup your claim.

 

Correlation is not causation.

[DigDeep]

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.

[Allkindabroke]

 

 

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.

[IndyPoolPlayer]

 

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.

[mendelssohn]

 

 

 

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.

[Allkindabroke]

 

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.

[Allkindabroke]

 

 

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.

[Allkindabroke]

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?

[mendelssohn]

2. Requires discussing the DOJ under the previous administration.

 

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

[hdporter]

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 ...

[Allkindabroke]

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 June 8, 2018 by Allkindabroke

[Newguy00]

Do Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal have mortgages?

[mendelssohn]

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?

[Allkindabroke]

 

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?

 

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

 

Checkmate.

[Allkindabroke]

Now if the mods would like to close the thread. I think all that needs to be said has been.

[Newguy00]

Now if the mods would like to close the thread. I think all that needs to be said has been.

 

 

That's weird.... I didn't think this was your thread. Didn't Ivy start the thread?

[mendelssohn]

I noticed it after all of your incoherent posts. Wow

[DigDeep]

 

 

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?

 

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

 

Checkmate.

 

 

Lame. Nice try, though.

Edited June 8, 2018 by DigDeep