HR 1728 and Age-Based Discrimination

Yes, I have read the Bill in its entirety.

Three specific things things to worry about:

1. How self-financiers are about to be regulated as per the definition in 101 (3)(E)). This is age-based discrimination as I will outline below.

2. How landlords will be regulated according to Section 220.

3. How Congress is washing its hands off of its responsibility of the creation of boom-bust in Section 701.

I have a niche client base that insists on 0% financing for purchase. That kind of financing could only be negotiated with owners who are in full control of their properties. According to Census 2000, 33% of owner-occupied houses were "free and clear" which is about 30-40 million houses, depending upon whose estimate you use.

HR 1728 Sec 101 Definition (3)(E)) contains built-in age discrimination. Most of the sellers who own their properties "free and clear" are 52 years-old and above. Even though writing to senators will get some attention, it is not going to do much good in terms changing the language.

This is what will work.

- Find at least one 55+ owner in each state who has one or more "free and clear" properties and wants to sell. If you cannot find them in each state, then find a few in CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, VA, etc., where most of the American population lives.

- Get him/her to lodge a discrimination complaint with their states' departments which handle age-based discrimination. For example, in Connecticut you they would contact Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities http://www.ct.gov/chro/site/default.asp

- Let the attorneys on states' payrolls fight the silliness in HR 1728.

Also, get AARP involved. This article may be relevant to educate people in the pervasiveness of age-based discrimination in America. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/agediscrim.htm