6 ms·

H.R.482 - Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2017

70 points by stuarto 10y ago

stuarto 10y ago
House and Senate bills (H.R.482 and S.103) have been introduced to ban further federal funding or use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that disseminate data on racial discrimination in housing and other community issues. The government created visualization site https://egis.hud.gov/affht/# https://egis.hud.gov/affht/# specifically would be banned for further support, maintenance or use by members of the federal government. Fortunately the raw data is still available for download. To me, government-ordered public-interest website teardowns sound a lot like a 21st century version of book-burning. Bill sponsors include Marco Rubio and Mike Lee in the Senate Geographic scientists have taken notice http://news.aag.org/2017/01/creating-and-preserving-actionable-and-policy-relevant-geography/ http://news.aag.org/2017/01/creating-and-preserving-actionab...
- kevinjcliao 10y ago
  Do you know where I can download the raw data? I'd like to keep a copy of it.
  - stuarto 10y ago
    https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4868/affh-raw-data/ https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4868/affh-raw-data/ A lot of it is just plain census data, with some additional housing details filled in! Adding maps makes it more accessible :)
- sologoub 10y ago
  Checked against where I live and it's surprisingly accurate, even on very micro level down to a couple streets.
- weberc2 10y ago
  > To me, government-ordered public-interest website teardowns sound a lot like a 21st century version of book-burning. Fortunately that's not what this is. No longer operating a website is not the same as ordering other such websites to be torn down. No need to overstate the problem.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    It's still the deliberate suppression of the dissemination of information and ideas.
  - wfo 10y ago
    Burning a book isn't ordering all other books of its type be burned, but it sure sends a message -- let's destroy this representation of knowledge because it contains knowledge or thought I don't approve of. It's entirely analogous to book-burning, though not book-banning (which is analogous to making such data illegal -- though it's arguable that since the federal government is really the only body capable of collecting such data, banning the federal government from collecting it IS banning it.. an argument for another place and time, I think) but OP didn't claim it as such, so it isn't an overstatement.
jcbeard 10y ago
Why would anyone want to remove public access to impartial facts? Hmm.
- pasquinelli 10y ago
  one possibility: to promote alternative facts.
- rayiner 10y ago
  France has banned collecting data on race/ethnicity since 1978. Moreover, if you are of the mind that we are in a post-racism society (not that I subscribe to that by the way), then this sort of data to you merely reflects peoples' preferences and is only presented to sow disunity.
  - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
    The only people who would ever subscribe to the notion that we're in a post-racism society are those who stand to benefit from that nonsense.
    - dukeluke 10y ago
      I disagree. I was raised being told that race doesn't matter, and I don't see it as an issue. Continuing to acknowledge race will just amplify the natural tendency of people to categorize people based on differences.
      - crooked-v 10y ago
        You may not see it as an issue, but the people negatively impacted by it certainly do. Or are we pretending that events like laws suppressing voters based on race [1] don't happen? [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/...
        10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sverige 10y ago
The title of this article is not the same as the original, which is "H.R.482 - Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2017" and concerns "The final rule of the Department of Housing and Urban Development entitled 'Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing'". The current title is click-bait.
- trowawee 10y ago
  No, it's a plain English description of what the bill actually does.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Congressional bill titles are anti-click-bait. "Nothing to see here." This title says what the bill actually does. How is the original title preferable?
- chippy 10y ago
  From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. "
  - Bedon292 10y ago
    One could argue that the original title as misleading. As it does not say what the bill actually does. In this case a plain English description of the results seems reasonable.
    - sverige 10y ago
      Well, I don't see anything about race discrimination in the language, and it seems to be about whether zoning should be done on a local level rather than by the federal government.
      - stuarto 10y ago
        The language in Sec 3 is specifically "database of geospatial information on community racial disparities or disparities in access to affordable housing". It is true that disparities may arise from either discrimination or other sources.
Bedon292 10y ago
"on community racial disparities" Would this not defund access to census data? As census data shows disparities in race? Edit: OK, after having talked to a buddy about this, it looks like this is address directly at HUD, and would not affect census data as that is under commerce.
- stuarto 10y ago
  My read is that they aren't (yet) proposing defunding the data, "just the maps" e.g. visualizations that make it accessible. Nothing (yet) stopping a public-interest project from hosting the same information on an open platform.
  - Bedon292 10y ago
    "design, build, maintain, utilize, or provide access to a Federal database of geospatial information" From my perspective that says they cannot even create the data, let alone give anyone access to it.
- jofer 10y ago
  I think the "notwithstanding additional laws" caveat will protect census data. There are a number of things that require the collection, storage, analysis, and dissemination of census data by law. It's definitely murky, though.
dangerlibrary 10y ago
Gerrymandering, and its effects on under-represented minorities, is far harder to illustrate and/or prove without easily accessible data of this kind.
- dmarg 10y ago
  But it has "protection" in its title! It must be protecting us right...

70 points by stuarto 10y ago

House and Senate bills (H.R.482 and S.103) have been introduced to ban further federal funding or use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that disseminate data on racial discrimination in housing and other community issues. The government created visualization site https://egis.hud.gov/affht/# https://egis.hud.gov/affht/# specifically would be banned for further support, maintenance or use by members of the federal government. Fortunately the raw data is still available for download. To me, government-ordered public-interest website teardowns sound a lot like a 21st century version of book-burning. Bill sponsors include Marco Rubio and Mike Lee in the Senate Geographic scientists have taken notice http://news.aag.org/2017/01/creating-and-preserving-actionable-and-policy-relevant-geography/ http://news.aag.org/2017/01/creating-and-preserving-actionab...

kevinjcliao 10y ago
Do you know where I can download the raw data? I'd like to keep a copy of it.
- stuarto 10y ago
  https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4868/affh-raw-data/ https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4868/affh-raw-data/ A lot of it is just plain census data, with some additional housing details filled in! Adding maps makes it more accessible :)
sologoub 10y ago
Checked against where I live and it's surprisingly accurate, even on very micro level down to a couple streets.
weberc2 10y ago
> To me, government-ordered public-interest website teardowns sound a lot like a 21st century version of book-burning. Fortunately that's not what this is. No longer operating a website is not the same as ordering other such websites to be torn down. No need to overstate the problem.
- serge2k 10y ago
  It's still the deliberate suppression of the dissemination of information and ideas.
- wfo 10y ago
  Burning a book isn't ordering all other books of its type be burned, but it sure sends a message -- let's destroy this representation of knowledge because it contains knowledge or thought I don't approve of. It's entirely analogous to book-burning, though not book-banning (which is analogous to making such data illegal -- though it's arguable that since the federal government is really the only body capable of collecting such data, banning the federal government from collecting it IS banning it.. an argument for another place and time, I think) but OP didn't claim it as such, so it isn't an overstatement.

jcbeard 10y ago

Why would anyone want to remove public access to impartial facts? Hmm.

pasquinelli 10y ago
one possibility: to promote alternative facts.
rayiner 10y ago
France has banned collecting data on race/ethnicity since 1978. Moreover, if you are of the mind that we are in a post-racism society (not that I subscribe to that by the way), then this sort of data to you merely reflects peoples' preferences and is only presented to sow disunity.
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  The only people who would ever subscribe to the notion that we're in a post-racism society are those who stand to benefit from that nonsense.
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    I disagree. I was raised being told that race doesn't matter, and I don't see it as an issue. Continuing to acknowledge race will just amplify the natural tendency of people to categorize people based on differences.
    - crooked-v 10y ago
      You may not see it as an issue, but the people negatively impacted by it certainly do. Or are we pretending that events like laws suppressing voters based on race [1] don't happen? [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/...
      - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sverige 10y ago

The title of this article is not the same as the original, which is "H.R.482 - Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2017" and concerns "The final rule of the Department of Housing and Urban Development entitled 'Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing'". The current title is click-bait.

trowawee 10y ago
No, it's a plain English description of what the bill actually does.
throwaway729 10y ago
Congressional bill titles are anti-click-bait. "Nothing to see here." This title says what the bill actually does. How is the original title preferable?
chippy 10y ago
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. "
- Bedon292 10y ago
  One could argue that the original title as misleading. As it does not say what the bill actually does. In this case a plain English description of the results seems reasonable.
  - sverige 10y ago
    Well, I don't see anything about race discrimination in the language, and it seems to be about whether zoning should be done on a local level rather than by the federal government.
    - stuarto 10y ago
      The language in Sec 3 is specifically "database of geospatial information on community racial disparities or disparities in access to affordable housing". It is true that disparities may arise from either discrimination or other sources.

Bedon292 10y ago

"on community racial disparities" Would this not defund access to census data? As census data shows disparities in race? Edit: OK, after having talked to a buddy about this, it looks like this is address directly at HUD, and would not affect census data as that is under commerce.

stuarto 10y ago
My read is that they aren't (yet) proposing defunding the data, "just the maps" e.g. visualizations that make it accessible. Nothing (yet) stopping a public-interest project from hosting the same information on an open platform.
- Bedon292 10y ago
  "design, build, maintain, utilize, or provide access to a Federal database of geospatial information" From my perspective that says they cannot even create the data, let alone give anyone access to it.
jofer 10y ago
I think the "notwithstanding additional laws" caveat will protect census data. There are a number of things that require the collection, storage, analysis, and dissemination of census data by law. It's definitely murky, though.

dangerlibrary 10y ago

Gerrymandering, and its effects on under-represented minorities, is far harder to illustrate and/or prove without easily accessible data of this kind.

dmarg 10y ago
But it has "protection" in its title! It must be protecting us right...