Prospective homeowners in the Myers Park neighborhood may have been discouraged from buying after reading a sample deed saying only "people of the Caucasian race" could live there, according to a city report.
The report obtained by Paper Trail outlines the findings of fact behind news this week that the state and local NAACP are trying to reach a settlement with the Myers Park HOA in the dispute.
Click here to read the report.
Its conclusion is based on three points:
1. In October 2007, the MPHA website displayed the sample deed showing the restrictive covenant.
2. The site also showed as a statement saying the MPHA is dedicated to seeing that the deed restrictions are observed and enforced.
3. Prospective buyers may have been discouraged from looking for a home in Myers Park.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community Relations Committee on Dec. 8 found that the Myers Park Homeowners Association engaged in discriminatory conduct by posting on its web site a sample deed that included the decades-old clause.
The dispute could end up in court if the two sides don't reach some sort of agreement. The president of the HOA issued a public apology Monday, saying the group was trying to draw attention to construction-related restrictions and did not intend to discriminate.
Here's the full story.
- Doug Miller
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
55 comments:
I highly doubt that the NAACP will be able to produce a plaintiff that has standing and can aver that he or she was ready willing and able to purchase a house in Myers Park, but then went to the MPHOA website, read the deed restrictions, misunderstood the applicability of the clause (reasonably), then read the statement from MPHOA that stated they intended to enforce the restrictions (to the extent that enforcement is accomplished by the MPHOA and not just lot owners acting under the MPHOA name), then can also aver that the reading of that on the website was the proximate cause of them not purchasing a home AND that they suffered some ascertainable damages as a result.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
(unless someone just blatantly lies).
It should go to court. Then the NAACP will have to prove damages in order to get paid, which they won't be able to do, since the NAACP wasn't attempting to buy a house in Myers Park.
Citizens should be getting tired of political organizations trying to get a payoff whenever someone makes an innocent mistake.
It's easy enough to figure out if the HOA is indeed discrimating...
Just answer one simple question...how many "non-caucasian" homeowners are there in Myers Park?
I truly hope the MPHOA fights this in court. On the face of it, this is a great example of a frivolous lawsuit.
From these comments, it looks like the NAACP is making all of the racists of the world awfully mad.
NAACP, keep up the good work!
Don't underestimate the ability of a group like the NAACP to concoct a sham lawsuit with a purported "plaintiff" who claims to have been discouraged from buying. Won't be true, but they won't let the facts get in the way of a good shakedown.
"Just answer one simple question...how many "non-caucasian" homeowners are there in Myers Park?"
Has nothing to do with it. If that's your logic, you may as well blame the employers of the "non-caucasians" for not paying them enough. You can't sell homes for seperate prices based on somebody's race. Most of the people who live in Myers Park come from old Charlotte families, or are investment bankers, doctors or work for a big law firm.
This will all go away once it reaches the court. It's a shakedown, plain and simple.
In the meantime, Myers Park needs to update there books.
It's time for the NAACP to use an old blockbusting tactic.
Pay them DOUBLE what they're asking...
That will make someone sell.
Oh, wait, you mean they aren't really buying?
Oh well, nevermind.
How many neighborhoods in Charlotte have a small percentage of "caucasian" residents? Do they owe the NAACP too?
As Anon @ 1:57 said...not going to happen. There is no way this would hold up in court. NAACP can't prove this ever happened, because frankly there is no way it happened. How many people with the right stature, money, and education would put their reputation on the line and say, in court and under oath "Well, I just thought MP was able to enforce race restrictions which have been federally and locally outlawed for decades because they were rich white folk! How am I supposed to know?"
Please.
I don't understand. There are plenty of "non-caucasians" in Myers Park. Who do you think is cutting the grass and cleaning the houses???
What about all the asian and indian doctors that live there? How did they pull it off in the face of all the adversity from the MPHOA?
How is this any different than giving a $1000 to only black males that graduate high school? Bet the NAACP does not have a problem with that!
Same for Greensboro. Blacks did not want to integrate schools. The city had to force them. It was the same all over. They lived in their own section of town and had their own movie theaters and restaurants. There were no problems.
Both blacks and whites ate at Woolworths downtown so we didnt understand the staged sit-in.
"Just answer one simple question...how many "non-caucasian" homeowners are there in Myers Park?"
There are quite a few middle eastern, Indians and Asians. I assume you consider them caucasian?
Why are most of the posters here outraged about NAACP actions? Why is there not outrage about that despicable clause in the MPHO document? This is an embarrassment to the city of Charlotte. We are way behind the times, folks. Time to act like a world-class city! Your outrage is in the wrong place.
To Anonymous 4:00,
Uhhh, the document was from 80 years ago.
I think the property values discouraged far more people from buying houses in Myers Park than some antiquated clause that most likely no one actually knew about.
the document may even be from 100 years ago.
The MPHA operates on donations. Membership is not required by residents. It's not like the organization has a ton of money to give away or to be taken away. There is no possible recourse aginast the homeowners themselves. This is just a media campaign. If the NAACP actually wanted to take this to court, the MPHA could spend it's whole bank account on lawyers in two weeks and there wouldn't be anything left for the NAACP to win.
Here's the deal. Once something is in a deed restriction, there ain't much way to get it off. Just try getting "satellite dish" or "mobile home" off one. These things are written such that they can't EVER be taken off. If you look at lots of older properties in the South you'll find plenty that have just that language in them. It's not the Myers Park Homeowners Association fault (at least, anyone less than say; 120 years old) that this thing is written in that way.
"Satellite dish" is not the same as that racist clause. Who cares how old the document is? That clause CAN and MUST be written out of that document if they're going to continue to post it as a public document. Good for the NCAAP for watching out for things like this. Somebody obviously needs to in this city!
Ideally speaking, it should be.
Effectively, it has been.
Realistically/practically, it can't be.
Can't change the Constitution either, one can AMEND it, can't change it.
4:19, according to all versions of this story the document is no longer posted. Satisfied? Probably not.
I equally amazed at the undercurrent of racism in these comments as I am the racism in the original document...
When is the South going to finally throw off the shackles of racism and move into the 21st century?
So the MPHOA violated city ordinance 12-111(6), but why does the NAACP expect to get paid for an ordinance violation?
Really? That is what you're getting from reading the comments? What I am getting from (most) of the comments is that the fact that this clause in this document is seen by so many to be a non-issue because it is on its face patently unenforceable, is a testament to the progress that has been made by minorities in this country. The fact that up until 50 years ago these clauses were being enforced, whereas now they are laughed at as an anachronism, to me, shows an incredible amount of progress.
Why I left the Confererate State of NC and Charlotte. Makes sense to me now - as it did be4 today.
Wish I could share your view that the comments show a lot of progress. I see some progress, sure, but so much racism too. So much more progress left to be made. This city is way behind the times in this area.
The Myers Park HOA should sue the NAACP for having "Colored" in their name.
Same thing.
It's easy enough to figure out if the HOA is indeed discrimating...
Just answer one simple question...how many "non-caucasian" homeowners are there in Myers Park?
That has nothing to do with it Moron. Obama's good friend Rev Wright bought a mansion in a 92% all white neighborhood, why? Remember he hates "whitey".
Who cares? Can I join the NAACP even though I'm not Colored? I'm turned off by the group because of that word. Get a life.
If by "behind the times" you mean that the NAACP is dredging up Jim Crow era deed restrictions in order to inflame its constituents that have been unenforceable in this state and all others since the Truman administration (See Shelley v. Kraemer (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1948), then yes, I completely agree with you. Filed in the 20's, rendered unenforceable in '48...they've been obsolete 2x as long as they were in effect!
Read a history book and get a clue.
What is most shocking is that this is really only an issue because these deed restrictions have been unenforceable and ignored for so long that the current citizenry has completely forgotten (reasonably) that they ever even existed in the first place and is so surprised by how outrageous it seems that it has created an uproar! How is that evidence of continuing racism or discrimination?! It is evidence of exactly the opposite!
This is an old clause that nobody has taken the time. This is another case of people making a big deal out of nothing. I guaruntee if they actually tried to buy a house. If there is a settlement, all it should be is the right for these people to buy the home (which they already can).
The fact that the NAACP would sue anyone on a race based issue is a joke since the organization itself is racist.
lot of ignorant racist comments, it proves why the south lost! and why it is stuck in the past !! people get real those days are gone! white people want to continue to opress the others, that's wrong and over !! your ways no longer work, many knew of that rule and decided to play stupid and looked the other way, instead of doing the right thing and remove such a stupid rule !
lot of ignorant racist comments, it proves why the north lost! and why it is stuck in the past !! people get real those days are gone! black people want to continue to opress the others, that's wrong and over !! your ways no longer work, many knew of that rule and decided to play stupid and looked the other way, instead of doing the right thing and remove such a stupid rule !
As someone involved with real estate I am sure that any person of color that made a full price offer on any house on the market in Myers Park would get a fully executed contract within hours. The seller could care less about the color of the skin.
White people don't have to oppress blacks any longer.
They do a good enough job themselves.
Why don't people understand that MPHOA posted a copy of an actual deed - not a rule they made up. The old deeds are in the records and can't be changed - even the discriminatory language. But illegal language can't be enforced - and isn't included in subsequent deeds. But it doesn't make the old ones go away. The only thing MPHOA did wrong was not add a disclaimer when they posted the old deed. And NO, I don't live in MP.
That's right...Pull out the race card again ! We are sooooooo tired of this !!!!!
Next they will ok each house to have cross burning and nooses in the yard. The MPHOA messed up, now they must pay the piper.
How is this any different than organized crime wanting protection money? This sad that the NAACP has become such a bottom feeded.
Who cares what the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community Relations Committee says? They act in an advisory capacity or as mediators only. They can "rule" on whatever they wish, but they can't force anyone to abide by that ruling. Their decisions have no real legal standing in a court of law.
This is the same old NAACP song and dance. Cry "discrimination" and give me my money. And what's so sad is people keep falling for it.
What is a person of color anyway? Isnt that just a way of trying to reduce race to color only? Why not use colored like NAACP?
Color is one aspect of many aspects of race. If you use color then stop using race. Instead of racist you can say colorist. Instead of racism you can use colorism.
I am a person of colour. Peachy pale-ish....sometimes I tan, but more often I burn. That adds, light bronze and lobster red to the mix.
I'm caucasian and it wasn't the fear of "others of colour" that put me off from buying in Myers Park--it was the prices.
All for the news that the Observer could report on in detail:
BOCC, DSS, Rodney Monroe, 485, Mike Easley, Mark Sanford, John Edwards and the list goes on and on ....
Why focus on Myers Park?
Its so back page!
People make mountains out of mole hills. Wasn't it until recently that some states still had laws prohibiting the races from mixing in marriage? Didn't prevent anybody from marrying their chosen partner. I'm Black -- have no desire to live in MP -- never will. However, if I really wanted to, I don't think it'd be a problem and wouldn't need NAACP to hold my hand either. We have more serious issues that need attention.
Wow!! Isn't it interesting how many people responded to this article and hid their comments about "they" and "them" under the name "anonymous"!! I would venture to say that these would be some of the same people to smile and laugh around "us" black people and then speak their true thoughts under the guise of anonymous. A racist out in the open is not one to be concerned with....be weary of the ones who hide behind anonymous! Sort of like the old days of the hood and sheets! The fact is that there are plenty of minorities in this area that are able to purchase homes anywhere they wish due to hard work and dedication to a better lifestyle for our families but it only takes an article like this to remind us to be weary....you never know what's behind that smile. No I don't agree with a lot of the principles of the NAACP but they do make the roaches scatter when you turn the lights on don't they?
Blacks spend their time being lazy, having babies, and being on government dole (at taxpayer expense) to be able to buy a house in Myers Park.
Who needs the race card? Just those that need to raise money and live off it NAACP, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton. I wonder when they will quit looking for "camera time" and actually try to help with the real issues. Not just those that make the headlines.
Mr. Myers must have been a wonderfully great American of honor and integrity who demanded only the highest quality in the confines of his Park. The creme always rises to the top. When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the ones hit always yip the loudest.
I'm surprised that the Paper Trail hasn't commented on another Charlotte deed-restriction issue, the Picardy neighborhood lawsuit regarding a rezoning petition that, if approved, would violate that SouthPark 'hood's single-family deed restrictions.
City Council held a public hearing on the petitioner's request last night. She wants to change the zoning of her Fairview Road house to allow commercial office usage. Neighbors are suing her to force compliance with a deed restriction that allows only single-family residential usage in Picardy, located a few blocks west of the mall and abutting the Barclay Downs neighborhood.
The city doesn't acknowledge or abide by such deed restrictions in its planning or in rezoning cases. Yet NC courts have been known to uphold them. A legal ruling trumps all.
Will be interesting to see if city council grants the rezoning, and whether a judge ultimately rules on this case.
Unlike racial deed restrictions which were ruled unenforceable by the Supreme Count in 1948, single-family restrictions are not illegal.
One person who filed a formal protest against the rezoning to require 9 "yea" votes by council to pass it, asked that no action be taken by city council pending the outcome of court proceedings. But I doubt council will do so.
Post a Comment