Any attempt to enforce rationalists moving in is illegal.
Is this really true? Based on my experience (not any legal experience, just seeing what people generally do that is considered fine) I think in the Bay Area the following are all okay:
Only listing a house to your friends / social circle.
Interviewing people who want to live with you and deciding based on how much you like them.
The following are not okay:
Having a rule against pets that doesn’t have an exception for seeing-eye dogs.
Explicitly deciding not to take someone as a house-mate only on the basis of some protected trait like race, etc. (but gender seems to be fine?).
Your experience is probably about controlling who lives in a single household. Freyley’s comment was about his “first plan,” ie, condos, which is pretty much what Alicorn was talking about. The issue is about scaling up from a single apartment to a building or neighborhood.
But, yes, it is important to pay attention to what is fine in practice, which is often quite different from the law, in both directions.
It would probably be reasonable to pay a lawyer for providing a definite answer and a list of legal strategies.
I mean, my first reaction after reading about the Fair Housing Act was “nah, that cannot really be a problem, I am sure there are dozen simple ways how to circumvent this”. But then the second thought was ”...and this is probably the same thing those people in 1960s (and later) who didn’t want black people in their neighborhood were thinking too… so there were probably already decades of legal battles with various strategies and counter-strategies, and it would be foolish to just do five minutes of armchair reasoning and pretend that I know better than all those people who did it for a job, and whose profits depended on it.”
(An example of a simple strategy I imagined: Could all people interested in living there create a cooperative enterprise, buy the whole area as a company, and then sell or rent it to their members? Because while you are in the company mode, it seems legal to buy “all or nothing”; and when selling or renting to the members, you simply won’t advertise the fact that you are selling or renting. -- Sounds reasonable to me, and I don’t see how this would be a problem… other than that someone probably already tried this to create a white-only neighborhood, and I don’t know what happened afterwards.)
Your corporate plan would likely work. White nationalist Craig Cobb attempted to purchase large tracts of land in Leith, ND with the express purpose of providing them exclusively to white nationalists. Some aspect of this plan appeared to get him around the Fair Housing Act.
I believe he was run out of town along with his little club, so the best advice would be basically ‘avoid advertising outside of rationalist circles’, and don’t antagonize your non rationalist neighbors.
Is this really true? Based on my experience (not any legal experience, just seeing what people generally do that is considered fine) I think in the Bay Area the following are all okay:
Only listing a house to your friends / social circle.
Interviewing people who want to live with you and deciding based on how much you like them.
The following are not okay:
Having a rule against pets that doesn’t have an exception for seeing-eye dogs.
Explicitly deciding not to take someone as a house-mate only on the basis of some protected trait like race, etc. (but gender seems to be fine?).
Your experience is probably about controlling who lives in a single household. Freyley’s comment was about his “first plan,” ie, condos, which is pretty much what Alicorn was talking about. The issue is about scaling up from a single apartment to a building or neighborhood.
But, yes, it is important to pay attention to what is fine in practice, which is often quite different from the law, in both directions.
It would probably be reasonable to pay a lawyer for providing a definite answer and a list of legal strategies.
I mean, my first reaction after reading about the Fair Housing Act was “nah, that cannot really be a problem, I am sure there are dozen simple ways how to circumvent this”. But then the second thought was ”...and this is probably the same thing those people in 1960s (and later) who didn’t want black people in their neighborhood were thinking too… so there were probably already decades of legal battles with various strategies and counter-strategies, and it would be foolish to just do five minutes of armchair reasoning and pretend that I know better than all those people who did it for a job, and whose profits depended on it.”
(An example of a simple strategy I imagined: Could all people interested in living there create a cooperative enterprise, buy the whole area as a company, and then sell or rent it to their members? Because while you are in the company mode, it seems legal to buy “all or nothing”; and when selling or renting to the members, you simply won’t advertise the fact that you are selling or renting. -- Sounds reasonable to me, and I don’t see how this would be a problem… other than that someone probably already tried this to create a white-only neighborhood, and I don’t know what happened afterwards.)
There is also that thing that the US is now more of a regulatory state and less of a place with the rule of law.
Your corporate plan would likely work. White nationalist Craig Cobb attempted to purchase large tracts of land in Leith, ND with the express purpose of providing them exclusively to white nationalists. Some aspect of this plan appeared to get him around the Fair Housing Act.
I believe he was run out of town along with his little club, so the best advice would be basically ‘avoid advertising outside of rationalist circles’, and don’t antagonize your non rationalist neighbors.
Freyley listed this second and said that its major problem is financing, not FHA, implying that this scheme is at least some protection.