Buy or Sell: Drawing the Color Line

[travestyny]

I am not challenging that Austin was segregated by law - I suspect it was.

But in the regulations posted above it starts with clause #8. In clause eight it states 'no property in 'said addition.' - What does 'Said addition' mean?

I notice the last line of what looks to be clause #7 speaks of 'servant quarters' - is it possible this restriction of African American ownership applies to the previous mentioned servant quarters? As in they didn't want black entrepreneurs to buy up these 'said additions' and become landlords over the black domestic help housed in these lots?

Would like to see clauses #1 through #7 to get the complete picture.

The reference 'said additions' is vauge. It doesn't say home ownership. What are the said additions?

It's referring to restricting any person of African descent from owning or renting a home on the property. So "additions" to the property.

https://www.kut.org/texas/2021-05-14...to-change-that

[travestyny]

- - Have regressed to 2 yrs of age now?

I stated that anyone north of us could live in our neighborhoods however few they were then, ie what would become South Austin after we were incorporated into the City.

If you're a lawyer as you implied, you're a guaranteed loss in court.

I've never implied I am a lawyer. I see you are another stalker. Stop paying attention to the schools I went to like that other clown who wants to Ashli Babbit himself.


This conversation is done now, correct? Or are you still lonely and begging for my attention. Because I'm satisfied that I've proven you don't know **** while satisfying my side of the argument with plenty of proof. If you're too ****** to understand any of it, that's on you. But I suspect you are just really lonely and do this trolling shlt because you have nothing else in your life. I do feel sorry for you but I won't continue to kick you around just so you feel important.

[Willie Pep 229]

It's referring to restricting any person of African descent from owning or renting a home on the property. So "additions" to the property.

https://www.kut.org/texas/2021-05-14...to-change-that

I read the link and it says home owners but that's the narrative, the primary source is still the same edited version. What are the said additions?

I don't how homeowner associations fit into a 1947 ordinance. They didn't start that HOA crap until thec1970s.

[travestyny]

I read the link and it says home owners but that's the narrative, the primary source is still the same edited version. What are the said additions?

I don't how homeowner associations fit into a 1947 ordinance. They didn't start that HOA crap until thec1970s.

Bro, I gave you the link so you have all the information I have. I mean if you think it's fake, then so be it. There are plenty of other examples.

OS-RA_Op-ed-calling-on-lege-to-remove-racist-deed-restrictions-1536x803.jpg

https://www.reformaustin.org/texas-l...-restrictions/

[Willie Pep 229]

Bro, I gave you the link so you have all the information I have. I mean if you think it's fake, then so be it. There are plenty of other examples.

OS-RA_Op-ed-calling-on-lege-to-remove-racist-deed-restrictions-1536x803.jpg

https://www.reformaustin.org/texas-l...-restrictions/

No not a fake. Don't think that.

But the damn primary source is directed at something in particular 'said additions' - and I got fixated; fixated on what this ordinance was about directly.

The demograpgic location maps show a segregated city.

How it got that way has multiple reasons with one of the most powerful reasons being red lining.

But that ordinance has a bug up its ass about something, someplace in particular.

It's not sweeping 'jim crow' legislation. They were dealing with an issue and I wanted to know the details.

But no, not a fake, definite red lining, but also not what the article narrative thinks it is either.

So think I.

[Willie Pep 229]

Bro, I gave you the link so you have all the information I have. I mean if you think it's fake, then so be it. There are plenty of other examples.

OS-RA_Op-ed-calling-on-lege-to-remove-racist-deed-restrictions-1536x803.jpg

https://www.reformaustin.org/texas-l...-restrictions/

OK I read this article.

RE THE SOURCE: Yea I know such laws existed, this is me your talking to, not him.

RE THE ARTICLE: It speaks of existing contracts written before such actions were outlawed.

We both know that those clauses would not stand up in court today.

So whatis it this article is calling for? To scrub the documents for racial injustice. Is this the bad part of CRT that the ************* b itch about.

Because I'm not sure what the article wants done.

Why not just let them, the (unconstitutional) race clauses, be scrubed as each new transfer of property occurs??

These clauses are not going to be enforced today.

[travestyny]

OK I read this article.

RE THE SOURCE: Yea I know such laws existed, this is me your talking to, not him.

RE THE ARTICLE: It speaks of existing contracts written before such actions were outlawed.

We both know that those clauses would not stand up in court today.

So whatis it this article is calling for? To scrub the documents for racial injustice. Is this the bad part of CRT that the ************* b itch about.

Because I'm not sure what the article wants done.

Why not just let them, the (unconstitutional) race clauses, be scrubed as each new transfer of property occurs??

These clauses are not going to be enforced today.

I think that is two different topics.


The owners can go through the process for having the racist covenants removed.

The legacy of redlining was already posted here a number of times. That is where CRT comes in.

I'll post it yet again...........

Why racial inequities in America's schools are rooted in housing policies of the past

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/6083342002/

[travestyny]

No not a fake. Don't think that.

But the damn primary source is directed at something in particular 'said additions' - and I got fixated; fixated on what this ordinance was about directly.

The demograpgic location maps show a segregated city.

How it got that way has multiple reasons with one of the most powerful reasons being red lining.

But that ordinance has a bug up its ass about something, someplace in particular.

It's not sweeping 'jim crow' legislation. They were dealing with an issue and I wanted to know the details.

But no, not a fake, definite red lining, but also not what the article narrative thinks it is either.

So think I.

I thought it was very clear. Additions to the property.

It seems you are trying to say those additions have nothing to do with who it is that owns all of the property. But it goes without saying that tif they are not allowed to sell any lot or homes on their property to any Black people, that they aren't going to be Black themselves. So it seems like a useless thing to harp on just for the sake of...I don't even know what. To be argumentative...?

The original link with the image I first posted also talked about this one:



“No persons of any race other than the white race shall use or occupy any building or any lot, except that this covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant.”


Which I think anyone can guess that the owner of the property then would not be Black. But you seem to be saying you don't want to believe that because it's not a picture of the actual deed? So just let the other one I posted which is as clear as possible serve as evidence and we can leave it at that.

[QueensburyRules]

I've never implied I am a lawyer. I see you are another stalker. Stop paying attention to the schools I went to like that other clown who wants to Ashli Babbit himself.


This conversation is done now, correct? Or are you still lonely and begging for my attention. Because I'm satisfied that I've proven you don't know **** while satisfying my side of the argument with plenty of proof. If you're too ****** to understand any of it, that's on you. But I suspect you are just really lonely and do this trolling shlt because you have nothing else in your life. I do feel sorry for you but I won't continue to kick you around just so you feel important.

- - U the one with the manic disorder, not me. Son, on my worst day I know more than U ever will in a lifetime of beating U brains out with U mania.

Nice cut and paste job though sadly wasted by a brain in crises.

[travestyny]

- - U the one with the manic disorder, not me. Son, on my worst day I know more than U ever will in a lifetime of beating U brains out with U mania.

Nice cut and paste job though sadly wasted by a brain in crises.

You've proven time and time again that you know very little, "Son."

You are constantly getting beat down by posters here to the point that we can assume anything you say is wrong. You have no idea what the fvvck you are talking about on almost every thing you chime in on. Again, I think you are just lonely and want someone to talk to. Get a fvvcking life.