Racist Language Found in California County's Home Ownership Documents

JBeukema

Rookie
Apr 23, 2009
25,613
1,746
0
everywhere and nowhere
For Sacramento County residents living in some neighborhoods, the title documents to their properties still contain racist regulations, such as “No persons of any race other than white or Caucasian shall use…”
That language can be found in the “Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions” documents for an unknown number of homes in the county.
In another example, an exception was made for tenants using retail space, saying “persons of the Japanese or Chinese race” are allowed to use it.

Racist Language Found in California County's Home Ownership Documents - FoxNews.com


go, california :rolleyes:
 
wtf? The question is..why has this not been addressed, rectified and tossed out??
 
Eh.

There are covenants on titles in places all over this country.

They are legally void, and just hang on in some titles.

Hell, even GW Bush had a "whites only" covenant when he bought and sold his Texas property.
 
Why should people be denied the right to associate with the races they choose? If I don't want to sell my house to a black, I shouldn't have to.
 
Why should people be denied the right to associate with the races they choose? If I don't want to sell my house to a black, I shouldn't have to.

What would happen if everyone adopted this mentality?
 
For Sacramento County residents living in some neighborhoods, the title documents to their properties still contain racist regulations, such as “No persons of any race other than white or Caucasian shall use…”
That language can be found in the “Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions” documents for an unknown number of homes in the county.
In another example, an exception was made for tenants using retail space, saying “persons of the Japanese or Chinese race” are allowed to use it.

Racist Language Found in California County's Home Ownership Documents - FoxNews.com


go, california :rolleyes:

Why focus on California? I suspect every state had communities wherein similar language was included in CC&R's. Such language was stricken from all such documents in the early 1950's in California, years before the civil rights movement.
 
Why should people be denied the right to associate with the races they choose? If I don't want to sell my house to a black, I shouldn't have to.
If a Black person had the highest bid for my house, I'd sell to him. Money is GREEN bro.
 
For Sacramento County residents living in some neighborhoods, the title documents to their properties still contain racist regulations, such as “No persons of any race other than white or Caucasian shall use…”
That language can be found in the “Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions” documents for an unknown number of homes in the county.
In another example, an exception was made for tenants using retail space, saying “persons of the Japanese or Chinese race” are allowed to use it.

Racist Language Found in California County's Home Ownership Documents - FoxNews.com


go, california :rolleyes:

Why focus on California? I suspect every state had communities wherein similar language was included in CC&R's. Such language was stricken from all such documents in the early 1950's in California, years before the civil rights movement.
It's Fox, being Fox.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
For Sacramento County residents living in some neighborhoods, the title documents to their properties still contain racist regulations, such as “No persons of any race other than white or Caucasian shall use…”
That language can be found in the “Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions” documents for an unknown number of homes in the county.
In another example, an exception was made for tenants using retail space, saying “persons of the Japanese or Chinese race” are allowed to use it.
Racist Language Found in California County's Home Ownership Documents - FoxNews.com


go, california :rolleyes:

Why focus on California? I suspect every state had communities wherein similar language was included in CC&R's. Such language was stricken from all such documents in the early 1950's in California, years before the civil rights movement.

Evidently not, as it's still there...
 

Why focus on California? I suspect every state had communities wherein similar language was included in CC&R's. Such language was stricken from all such documents in the early 1950's in California, years before the civil rights movement.

Evidently not, as it's still there...

Bullshit. Prove it!
 
Anyone have a contract that can be seen with their own eyes that this is what it states?
 
Evidently not, as it's still there...

Bullshit. Prove it!
What the fuck do you think the story's about?

The following notice is pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 12956.1 of the
California Government Code
Notice
"If this document contains any restriction
based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, familial status, marital status,
disability, national origin, source of income
as defined in subdivision (p) of Section
12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates
state and federal fair housing laws and is
void, and may be removed pursuant to
Section 12956.2 of the Government Code.
Lawful restrictions under state and federal
law on the age of occupants in senior
housing or housing for older persons shall
not be construed as restrictions based on
familial status."

Posted on all sales, etc of real estate in California making all such reference in CC&R's illegal.

The story is the usual Fox Bullshit; only fucking morons believe anything which comes form the mouth of any Fox talking head or on the crawl.

12955 of the Government Code in Part:



"12955. It shall be unlawful:
(a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate
against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry,
familial status, source of income, or disability of that person.
(b) For the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause
to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, familial status, or disability of any person seeking to
purchase, rent or lease any housing accommodation.
(c) For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be
made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement,
with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or
disability or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or
discrimination..."

WAIS Document Retrieval
 
Last edited:
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

I clicked it. I am no expert on real estate laws, but in my county, no such CC&R's apply to apartment complexes on tenants or what race or even hint at discrimination of any kind.
 
Bullshit. Prove it!
What the fuck do you think the story's about?

The following notice is pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 12956.1 of the
California Government Code
Notice
"If this document contains any restriction
based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, familial status, marital status,
disability, national origin, source of income
as defined in subdivision (p) of Section
12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates
state and federal fair housing laws and is
void, and may be removed pursuant to
Section 12956.2 of the Government Code.
Lawful restrictions under state and federal
law on the age of occupants in senior
housing or housing for older persons shall
not be construed as restrictions based on
familial status."

Posted on all sales, etc of real estate in California making all such reference in CC&R's illegal.

The story is the usual Fox Bullshit; only fucking morons believe anything which comes form the mouth of any Fox talking head or on the crawl.

12955 of the Government Code in Part:



"12955. It shall be unlawful:
(a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate
against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry,
familial status, source of income, or disability of that person.
(b) For the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause
to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, familial status, or disability of any person seeking to
purchase, rent or lease any housing accommodation.
(c) For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be
made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement,
with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or
disability or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or
discrimination..."

WAIS Document Retrieval

Then you admit that the wording still exists in some deeds in California? Or do you still insist that everyone, including you, is lying?

Before you go all ape shit and accuse me of being stupid and other things, the above code only applies to sales made after it goes into affect. If someone has that in their original deed, and has not sold the property, it is not yet added to the deed to make it void.
 
What the fuck do you think the story's about?

The following notice is pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 12956.1 of the
California Government Code
Notice
"If this document contains any restriction
based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, familial status, marital status,
disability, national origin, source of income
as defined in subdivision (p) of Section
12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates
state and federal fair housing laws and is
void, and may be removed pursuant to
Section 12956.2 of the Government Code.
Lawful restrictions under state and federal
law on the age of occupants in senior
housing or housing for older persons shall
not be construed as restrictions based on
familial status."

Posted on all sales, etc of real estate in California making all such reference in CC&R's illegal.

The story is the usual Fox Bullshit; only fucking morons believe anything which comes form the mouth of any Fox talking head or on the crawl.

12955 of the Government Code in Part:



"12955. It shall be unlawful:
(a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate
against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry,
familial status, source of income, or disability of that person.
(b) For the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause
to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, familial status, or disability of any person seeking to
purchase, rent or lease any housing accommodation.
(c) For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be
made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement,
with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or
disability or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or
discrimination..."

WAIS Document Retrieval

Then you admit that the wording still exists in some deeds in California? Or do you still insist that everyone, including you, is lying?

Before you go all ape shit and accuse me of being stupid and other things, the above code only applies to sales made after it goes into affect. If someone has that in their original deed, and has not sold the property, it is not yet added to the deed to make it void.

The wording was included in many CC&R's around the country, including in California, decades ago. A property I bought in January has such language, written in 1947; times have changed and the laws have too. Also, the CC&R's were not runewed and expired in 1956.
What was the point of the OP? A fucking lie by omission.
 
The following notice is pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 12956.1 of the
California Government Code
Notice
"If this document contains any restriction
based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, familial status, marital status,
disability, national origin, source of income
as defined in subdivision (p) of Section
12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates
state and federal fair housing laws and is
void, and may be removed pursuant to
Section 12956.2 of the Government Code.
Lawful restrictions under state and federal
law on the age of occupants in senior
housing or housing for older persons shall
not be construed as restrictions based on
familial status."

Posted on all sales, etc of real estate in California making all such reference in CC&R's illegal.

The story is the usual Fox Bullshit; only fucking morons believe anything which comes form the mouth of any Fox talking head or on the crawl.

12955 of the Government Code in Part:



"12955. It shall be unlawful:
(a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate
against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry,
familial status, source of income, or disability of that person.
(b) For the owner of any housing accommodation to make or to cause
to be made any written or oral inquiry concerning the race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, familial status, or disability of any person seeking to
purchase, rent or lease any housing accommodation.
(c) For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be
made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement,
with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or
disability or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or
discrimination..."

WAIS Document Retrieval

Then you admit that the wording still exists in some deeds in California? Or do you still insist that everyone, including you, is lying?

Before you go all ape shit and accuse me of being stupid and other things, the above code only applies to sales made after it goes into affect. If someone has that in their original deed, and has not sold the property, it is not yet added to the deed to make it void.

The wording was included in many CC&R's around the country, including in California, decades ago. A property I bought in January has such language, written in 1947; times have changed and the laws have too. Also, the CC&R's were not runewed and expired in 1956.
What was the point of the OP? A fucking lie by omission.

Deed restrictions and CC&Rs do not expire. They may be overturned, ruled illegal, or changed by a vote, but they are always there otherwise.

I never said the OP was accurate, I am just pointing out that you claiming they do not exist is not accurate either.
 
then you admit that the wording still exists in some deeds in california? Or do you still insist that everyone, including you, is lying?

Before you go all ape shit and accuse me of being stupid and other things, the above code only applies to sales made after it goes into affect. If someone has that in their original deed, and has not sold the property, it is not yet added to the deed to make it void.

the wording was included in many cc&r's around the country, including in california, decades ago. A property i bought in january has such language, written in 1947; times have changed and the laws have too. Also, the cc&r's were not runewed and expired in 1956.
What was the point of the op? A fucking lie by omission.

deed restrictions and cc&rs do not expire. bullshit! they may be overturned, ruled illegal, or changed by a vote, but they are always there otherwise.

I never said the op was accurate, i am just pointing out that you claiming they do not exist is not accurate either.
they do not exist in any new documents, any that continue to exist are illegal and hence unenforceable.

The property i purchsed in january of this year had a restriction in the cc&r's on any person of color living in the subdivision except for servants; it was written in 1947 and expired in 1956.

So, what is the point of the op, and for that matter fox focusing on the matter. If of historical interest it might have some merit if in context of the times. But, to offer such as it was presented it nothing more than typical rw misrepresentation and as such bullshit.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top