Dear Mr. Jones,

You know, they say history repeats itself - but only if we let it. In his 1963 inaugural address, George Wallace famously proclaimed, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Well, the American people have spent the better part of 60 years proving him wrong. But every now and then, old habits resurface like a bad penny, and that's why I'm writing to you today. The good folks at Thornhill Properties, Inc. seem to be channeling Wallace's spirit, and I think it's time we give them a gentle reminder of what progress looks like.

My name is Jacob Kogan, and I'm the owner and manager of several rental units at Chestnut Hill Condominium in Reisterstown, Maryland. Unfortunately, some rather troubling behavior has come to light, and I need your help to set things straight.

1. Denial of Extermination Services to African-American Tenants

In 2017, the HOA announced that extermination services would be available for all tenants - a fine initiative. But in March 2023, Ms. Destiny Salsbury, an African-American tenant, requested this service, and despite promises from the property manager, no service was ever provided. Similar treatment was meted out to Ms. Deloris Cook, another African-American tenant, who faced months of delays and eventually moved out of sheer frustration. Now, this wouldn't be the first time someone "forgot" a promise, but you and I both know this feels a bit too coincidental, especially given the circumstances.

Legal Implication: The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601) expressly forbids discrimination in housing services based on race. Thornhill Properties, by denying services to these tenants, is violating these rights - and I know you agree that this is a chapter of history we don't want to revisit.

2. Denial of Pool Access Based on Race

In August 2024, Ms. Destiny Salsbury applied for pool access and was inexplicably denied. Meanwhile, a different tenant in the same building - one who happens not to be African-American - received their pool pass without any hiccups. Now, I know you don't need me to connect the dots, but suffice it to say, the only difference between these two applicants was race.

Legal Implication: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000a) guarantees equal access to public accommodations. Denying Ms. Salsbury access to the pool because of her race is a clear violation of this statute.

3. Racially Insensitive Communication

Now, this one really made my stomach turn. On May 20, 2024, I received an email from a Thornhill employee suggesting that I "find a nice old European lady" to rent one of my units. I don't know about you, but I thought we left that kind of talk back in the dustbin of history. We've worked too hard as a nation to allow this kind of discriminatory language to creep back into everyday life.

Legal Implication: This statement clearly violates 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which guarantees that all persons in the United States have the same rights to contract as anyone else, regardless of race.

Conclusion: Now, as you know, Mr. Jones, "trust, but verify." I believe your involvement could swiftly resolve these issues before they attract more attention than Thornhill would care to deal with. Civil rights organizations are sure to show a keen interest if things continue down this road, and it could all be avoided with a little bit of cooperation and a lot of common sense. After all, the best battles are the ones we don't have to fight.

Oh, and that reminds me of a little joke: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb? None, because they'd rather keep everyone in the dark! But in this case, I think a little light on the situation will do us all a favor.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Warm regards,
Jacob Kogan