"Said property shall be used and occupied by white persons only except..."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

But the exclusive Dallas community the Bush family will soon join has a troubled history of its own.

Until 2000, the neighborhood association's covenant said only white people were allowed to live there, though an exception was made for servants.

Enacted in 1956, part of the original document reads: "Said property shall be used and occupied by white persons except those shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of different race or nationality in the employ of a tenant."

The entire covenant can be seen here.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/In_whitesonly_neighborhood_residents_worried_Bush_1206.html

[MineralMan]

1. Looks like the illegal alien maids and groundskeepers

will be OK, though, according to that covenant, so Bush will be fine...

[LostinVA]

2. That is totally illegal -- how the hell did they get away with that???

[Lex]

3. No one challenged it

so it just stayed like that.

[madmom]

5. Don't ya know repugs are above the law!

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Our local paper did an investigation not long ago

and found several area neighborhoods with similar 'regulations' still on the books. A state law banning them was proposed but I honestly don't remember if it passed or not. Surprisingly, there was an out that allowed private homes associations to have these covenants and they were not forbidden by federal housing discrimination laws.

[LostinVA]

10. Unbelievable

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. The local congressman is an African American

and he had talked about federal legislation banning these types of covenants. But I can't find anything on Google. I will keep searching but I suspect since I can't find anything, the legislation never got anywhere.

[LostinVA]

14. I am very shocked by this

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. So was I when I heard about it

[louis-t]

12. They are "not forbidden" because

they are not enforceable. They are only "still on the books" on the covenants and restrictions documents that were original to the house when it was built. There are no federal, state, county, township or city laws that say you can ban someone from living in a certain neighborhood. Having a state law that bans the "regulations" would only be a symbolic measure.

edit: calm down, jeez.

[LostinVA]

15. Why should the poster "calm down, jeez"?

[louis-t]

23. OK, read my lips

THERE ARE NO ENFORCEABLE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST A PERSON OF ANY RACE OR CREED LIVING IN A CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD! THESE COVENANTS ARE HISTORIC ONLY. THEY ARE IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FROM WHEN THE HOMES WERE BUILT IN THE 50'S AND 60'S. MOST OF THE SUBDIVISIONS IN THE U.S. THAT WERE BUILT IN THE 50'S AND EARLY 60'S HAD SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS. THESE ARE NOT LAWS! THEY REFLECT A PARANOID STUPIDITY OF THE (WHITE) GENERAL POPULATION OF 50 YEARS AGO. I WAS SHOCKED THE FIRST TIME I SAW ONE OF THESE DOCS, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS. EVERYONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT NO DEVELOPER HAS PUT THESE RESTRICTIONS INTO A COVENANT FOR OVER 40 YEARS, AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ENFORCEABLE IN ANY WAY SINCE 1967. THERE IS NO 'BAD GUY' HERE. THERE IS NO REASON TO BE UPSET. I SUGGEST EVERYONE SEEK OUT A COPY OF ONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS TO REMIND OURSELVES NOT TO LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN. ok, i'm done now.

oh, and the 'calm down' was for the posters who were over-heating over this. it's a red herring.

[HamdenRice]

29. Agree this discussion is overheated, but there IS something uniquely sleezy about this ...

Racially restrictive covenants became unenforceable nation wide in 1949, when the Supreme Court decided Shelly v. Kraemer.

So you are right, that these clauses are simply historical relics that stayed in the covenants and have no effect whatsoever.

But there is something especially sleezy about this one because as the OP says, the original covenant was dates after 1949.

So, this covenant was designed as a big, southern, "fuck you" to the yankee Supreme Court -- in other words, it was already just a racist symbolic gesture at the time it was drafted.

[louis-t]

32. Wow, I didn't know SCOTUS decided this in the forties.

I've seen lots of these, in Michigan, from the 50's and 60's. The one you are speaking of is NOT unique. If SCOTUS truly made these covenants unenforceable in 1949, then thousands of unenforceable restrictions were put into covenants illegally for almost 20 years.

[HamdenRice]

36. They were probably intended as persuasion, even if not enforceable

In pop history, we think of Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954) as a bolt from the blue; it wasn't. The Court was building up to it through the late 40s with decisions like Shelly v. Kraemer, and lots of decisions about segregation in higher education, especially southern law schools.

Shelly was a very complicated decision that did not make racially restrictive covenants "illegal." What it said was that when a state court enforced a racially restrictive covenant, it was engaging in "state action" that was discriminatory; in other words, the covenant could only work if it "drafted" the state into carrying out what seemed like private discrimination. It forbade state courts from enforcing these covenants.

But, Shelly did not say landowners could not put these covenants in; it only said state courts could not enforce them.

So if you were a racist developer in say 1952, you could put this covenant in a deed. Most white buyers would obey them even if the other adjacent white landowners could not take them to court if they violated the covenant.

So you are right, they continued to be inserted for years, even though most real estate developers knew they could not be enforced by courts; but they kind of were enforced by overall community opinion, which was "private action" and beyond the Supreme Court's reach.

Without looking it up, my guess is that they actually became illegal to put in deeds as a result of the Fair Housing Act of the mid 1960s.

[louis-t]

37. Thanks for the clarification.

I sell Real Estate, so I understand deeds and covenants, but the legal history before 1967 Fair Housing I'm not up on.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Reminds me of a racist neighbor I once had

Back in the 80s, a house on our block was sold to a couple. He was African American, she was white. Before they had a chance to move in, this idiot who lived next door to the house knocked on my door one evening. He said since I was a teacher, he figured I knew all about how to write a petition. I said I could probably figure it out, what did he want a petition for. He said the house next door to him had been sold to a bi-racial couple, he thought that was worse than living next to an "all N----- family" and he wanted me to help him write a petition to get all the neighbors to sign so this bi-racial couple couldn't move in.

I told him I couldn't do it because I didn't think it was wrong for this family to move in, I actually appreciated that my own children would be living in a diverse neighborhood and besides, it was against the law to keep an African American from living anywhere he wanted to live.

The racist asked "since when?"

I said "oh, since about 25 years ago. Civil Rights legislation ring a bell or did you drop out of school before they covered that?" (This was in the late 80s)

And I slammed the door.

Still makes me snicker. Proof of the connection between ignorance and racism. :)

[louis-t]

24. As late as the early '90's I heard of things

like this happening. A Realtor friend was physically attacked by neighbors after selling a home to a black couple.

[unblock]

22. actually, it might be illegal, not merely unenforceable

i'm not up on the subtleties of redlining laws, but i don't think it's legal to put up a sign (or the equivalent in a covenant) in the management office that says "whites only". even if it's not enforced, or not enforceable, it still attempts to steer non-whites away, which is redlining.


besides, unenforceable odious behavior is still worth objecting to. government-sanctioned odious behavior is not the only thing worth fighting.

[qazplm]

4. here's the thing

1. sounds like a lot of racist folks lived there in 1965 to 2000
2. sounds like 15 of the 17 homeowners were less racist enough to say get rid of this provision

I hate Bush as much as the next guy but I somehow doubt they knew of this provision when they went there and decided to live.

I certainly dont think Mark Cuban is a racist and he lives there, although Ross Perot I have no idea one way or the other.

It would be interesting to find out if any minorities do in fact live there or have lived there in the past, not as servants obviously.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

7. Having lived in 3 townhomes in my life, my guess is...

...if there is a "neighborhood association covenant," everyone living there has a copy, and the percentage of homeowners who have read every word of it (or any of it at all) is up for debate. I knew many people who received these documents, went "yeah, OK," stuck it in a drawer, where it remained, unread.

You're right, it is possible to live in that kind of community without choosing to do so out of racist motives.

And yes, the homeowners who fought the provision deserve credit for doing so.

:patriot:

[valerief]

6. White persons in 1956 meant something different than white persons in 2000.

Political racial classifications are so moronic, which makes this past provision perfect for the Bushes.

[TexasObserver]

8. Such covenants were routine 50 years ago in Texas.

Most communities got rid of them in 1970s and 1980s.

Some of the really rich ones didn't start worrying about it until NBA, NFL, and MLB players started making so much money.

Of course, NBA great Bill Russell experienced the same sort of thing in Boston back in the day.

FYI, there is a very rich part of Houston that became very concerned back in the mid 1990s that Hakeem Olajuwon was going to buy a major building that was being held by the RTC and turn it into a mosque. The property was part of the realty repossessed during the late 1980s and early 1990s real estate and banking collapse. It was up for bids, and Hakeem was a bidder.

Hakeem has long been involved in Houston real estate plays. He's a very, very smart investor.

[slackmaster]

34. We had them in California too, both written and unwritten

One of my favorite pieces of folklore about the area around UC San Diego is that the entire suburb of La Jolla, where I grew up, was "redlined" until about 1960. While there were no written covenants in California by then, realtors would systematically direct non-whites and non-Christians to other neighborhoods. Jews were steered to the College area, San Carlos, and other zones far from the coast.

As a result there were practically no Jews in La Jolla. The great scholar Roger Revelle and others had a "come to Jesus" meeting with the local realtors and business leaders. They pointed out that it would not be possible to build a world-class research and learning institution without allowing Jews to live in the area.

[louis-t]

11. A lot of subdivision covenants

still have those restrictions. The only way to get rid of it would be to print new documents for every home in the sub and destroy the old ones. I saw one as late as 2002, and saved a copy for its historic value. It doesn't mention servants, but merely restricts the "sale to anyone but Caucasians". They're all a little different. I should say that these are the original documents from the '50's and '60's, could not be enforced today, and have generally been ignored for decades except as a curiousity. We need to keep copies of this stuff to remind us of how stupid our ancestors were. Any new home being built in that community would certainly not have that clause in its covenants. I think there are a million other good reasons to pick on stupidface. This one isn't worth pursuing.

[Tutonic]

16. Illegal restriction. Fair housing laws enacted in mid sixties outlawed

restrictive housing covenants based on race, religion, nationality, etc.

[Inkyfuzzbottom]

18. Who in their right mind...

EXCEPT for an idiot like Bush, would even want to live in such a community? Let them live in their little bubble. Most sane people would prefer to live out in the multi-cultural, multi-racial real world where all the beauty, culture and fun is!

[TahitiNut]

25. "... where all the beauty, culture and fun is!" Word! Amen!

:applause:

[yurbud]

20. true to form

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

21. For a second I thought about about the Whitehouse!

Every time I see something like this, I ask myself, isn't it 2008? and what's wrong with these people?

[Cleita]

26. And who says that white privilege and entitlement are a thing of the past?n/t

[Festivito]

27. My church sold a property with that restriction "caucasian" only.

We sold it to a mixed race couple. The deed still has the restriction written in fine print about to whom the house may be sold.

the restriction is unenforceable.

Trivia: People from India have been considered caucasian, despite their color. Go figure.

[crispini]

28. If you go back to the original deed on my property, it has that in there as a deed restriction.

It expired long, long ago.

[billyclem]

30. It was a lot worse than property covenants.....

There seems to be a lot of anger concerning the covenants from a wealthy 1950's neighborhood. These existed all over the country and were used by both republicans and democrats.

How many are old enough to remember segregated businesses and public facilities? "White Only" drinking fountains in front and a dilapidated "Colored" one in back. Shoe stores that let blacks
buy shoes; but, not try them on. Just a couple of examples.

The worst were the various schemes in use to prevent blacks from voting. This is still worth the anger!

billyclem

[Luciferous]

31. Who cares?

I mean, is anyone really surprised that they would live somewhere like that?!

[ColbertWatcher]

33. I suspect Laura may be behind the choice of houses ...

... she picked this one so Condi can't move in.

[Maestro]

35. Not surprising to me. One of the most exclusive country clubs

is there plus I have lived in the area since the early 70's and since then I have never consider Highland Park to a diverse community.

Here are some interesting things I have found.

Some interesting observations in this long thread about Highland Park

Crooks and Liars has some more info on the current situation. Apparently the first African-Americans that moved to Highland Park moved there in 2003. Not exactly a progressive community is it?

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/george-w-bush-and-those-whites-only-

[Catherine Vincent]

38. The people that moved in hoods with that rule in their covenant was complacent.

That's the way it was so they ignored it.