October 5, 2015
Monday’s Adjudication Roundup
- New York federal judge dismisses suit against Bank of America Corp. over “hustle” high-speed mortgage approval process for allegedly defrauding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- Midtown TDR Ventures LLC and Midtown GCT Ventures LLC, real estate developers that currently own Grand Central Terminal, file a complaint against the City of New York and SL Green, another developer, claiming that they were robbed of potential profits from air rights when the City and SL Green worked to rezone the area in which Grand Central sits and devalued the property.
October 5, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
October 2, 2015
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
![OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAAnthony22 at English Wikipedia [GFDL (https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](https://i0.wp.com/www.refinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Westchester_Couny_Center_December_3_2013.jpg?ssl=1)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling in Westchester v. HUD, No. 15-2294 (Sept. 25, 2015) the longstanding case regarding whether Westchester County has “adequately analyzed — in its applications for HUD funds — impediments to fair housing within the County’s jurisdictions.” (3) The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of HUD, which means that HUD’s withholding of funds under the Community Planning and Development (CPD) Formula Grant Programs stands.
HUD withheld those funds because it found that the County had failed to “assess the impediments to fair housing choice caused by local zoning ordinances or to identify actions the County would take to overcome these impediments.” (6) HUD further found, as a result that the County would not “affirmatively further fair housing” as required by the Fair Housing Act. (6)
The case resolved a narrow, legalistic question:
May HUD require a jurisdiction that applies for CPD funding to analyze whether local zoning laws will impede the jurisdiction’s mandate to “affirmatively further fair housing”? Because HUD may impose such a requirement on jurisdictions that apply for CPD funds, and because the decision to withhold Westchester County’s CPD funds in this case was not arbitrary or capricious, we conclude that HUD’s action complied with federal law. (50)
While the case was decided on narrow grounds, the Court does notes that
The broader dispute between the County and HUD implicates many “big‐picture” questions. Beyond prohibiting direct discrimination based on race or other protected categories, what must a jurisdiction do to “affirmatively further fair housing”? What is the difference, if any, between furthering “fair” housing and furthering “affordable” housing? How much control may HUD exert over local policies, which, in its view, impede the creation of “fair” or “affordable” housing? And if conflicts of this sort between HUD and local governments are to be avoided, is the simplest solution to avoid applying for federal funds in the first place? (32)
These are all very good questions and it is unfortunate that this case does not help to answer any of them. The level of segregation in the United States by race has been a tragedy for many, many decades and we are no closer to figuring out how to deal with it after all these years.
October 2, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Friday’s Government Reports
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Monthly Complaint Snapshot focuses on consumer complaints related to mortgages. The CFPB found that consumers have particular difficulty with mortgage servicing – especially when applying for loan modifications to avoid foreclosure. The report also takes a close look at compliants coming out of the Denver, CO area.
- The U.S. Treasury has announced $327 million in CDFI Bond Fund Gaurantees, which were awarded to CDFI’s to issue bonds, the funds of which are intended to be used to finance projects in low income communities. Among the initiatives guaranteed include senior and long term care development in latino communities and residential and commercial development in Native American communities.
October 2, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
October 1, 2015
The New Mortgage Disclosure Rules
TheStreet.com quoted me in New Mortgage Rule Requires Disclosure Documents to Help Consumers Compare Costs. It reads, in part,
A new set of shorter and simpler mortgage documents will be disclosed to consumers before they close on a loan, making the costs more transparent and helping home buyers compare offers from multiple lenders easier.
Mortgage lenders are required to start giving loan applicants the new disclosure documents starting on October 3, a new government requirement imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act.
“The disclosures will be easier and shorter so that consumers understand the mortgage they are getting because it will be simpler to compare offers,” said Holden Lewis, a mortgage analyst for Bankrate.com, the Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.-based financial content company.
* * *
Drawbacks of New Documents
Of course, it’s not all positive. You can now expect your closing to take longer than before while lenders and title companies adjust to the new procedures. Consumers should definitely lock in their interest rates “a little longer to be safe in case there are delays,” he said. The process might stretch to three days, so lock in your mortgage rates for 45 days instead of the traditional 30 days and “err on side of caution,” Lewis said.
Homebuyers can mitigate this issue by negotiating the terms of their interest rates cautiously and discussing them with their lender or real estate broker who can help determine “whether there is enough of a cushion to take into account all of the things that can delay a closing,” he said. “Borrowers should know that a rate lock without a sufficient cushion of time offers a false sense of security.”
Closing on a house might take longer, so consumers should make sure their timing meshes with the apartment or house they are renting or if they are selling their current home. This is more critical right now because of the transition to the new documents.
“Through the end of the year, homebuyers may want to build in a cushion as to when they have to close on the purchase,” Reiss said. “This could offer some protection if the mortgage application process takes longer than expected because of TRID-related issues.”
If tax reasons are prompting homeowners to close on a sale by a certain date, then it is even more vital to focus on documents a buyer, lender or tittle company might require during the process.
“As with many things, staying on top of everyone at each stage such as the contract negotiation, mortgage application and closing is the best bet for avoiding surprises and bad results,” he said.
October 1, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Thursday’s Advocacy & Think Tank Round-Up
- The Furman Center has released discussion 16, A New Approach to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in its ‘The Dream Revisited’ Series, a “slow debate.” Discussion 16 contains five essays on the subject of affirmatively furthering fair housing. This Author recommends HUD’s New AFFH Rule: The Importance of the Ground Game, by Michael Allen, which argues the HUD lacks the resources to enforce its rule which requires grant recipients not just avoid housing discrimination but “affirmatively further fair housing.” Allen believes that the only way to hold the public housing agencies and block grant recipients accountable is through grass roots and legal advocates implementing their own enforcement strategy, through litigation if necessary.
- The National Association of Realtors’ Pending Home Sales Index is up for the 12th straight month, year over year, despite a slight decline from July to August. The index decreased 1.4 percent to 109.4 in August from 110.9 in July but is still 6.1 percent above August 2014 (103.1). Watch NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun discuss his view of the housing market.
- The National Housing Conference has released Paycheck to Paycheck a database that compares wages for selected occupations to assess the affordability of housing for full-time employees in different areas of the United States. A companion report, A Snapshot of Metropolitan Housing Affordability for Millennial Workers explores housing affordability for millennials in five occupations, including: administrative assistant, retail cashier, e-commerce customer service representative, food service manager, and cardiac technician.
October 1, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
September 30, 2015
Inclusionary Housing and Equitable Communities
The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has released a policy focus report, Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities. The Executive Summary opens,
After decades of disinvestment, American cities are rebounding, but new development is often driving housing costs higher and displacing lower-income residents. For cities struggling to maintain economic integration, inclusionary housing is one of the most promising strategies available to ensure that the benefits of development are shared widely. More than 500 communities have developed inclusionary housing policies, which require developers of new market-rate real estate to provide affordable units as well. Economically diverse communities not only benefit low-income households; they enhance the lives of neighbors in market-rate housing as well. To realize the full benefit of this approach, however, policies must be designed with care. (3)
The report uses the term inclusionary zoning to refer to
a range of local policies that tap the economic gains from rising real estate values to create affordable housing—tying the creation of homes for low- or moderate-income households to the construction of market-rate residential or commercial development. In its simplest form, an inclusionary housing program might require developers to sell or rent 10 to 30 percent of new residential units to lower-income residents. Inclusionary housing policies are sometimes referred to as “inclusionary zoning” because this type of requirement might be implemented through an area’s zoning code; however, many programs impose similar requirements outside the zoning code. (7)
The report notes that
Policy makers are understandably concerned that affordable housing requirements will stand in the way of development. But a review of the literature on the economics of inclusionary housing suggests that well-designed programs can generate significant affordable housing resources without overburdening developers or landowners or negatively impacting the pace of development. (4)
The report is obviously addressing two of the most important issues facing us today — the housing affordability challenge that many households face as well as the increasing stratification of communities by income and wealth.
There is a lot of value in the survey of the academic literature on inclusionary housing policies that is provided by this report. At the same time, there is some fuzzy thinking in it too. For instance, the report states that, “As the basic notion of supply and demand suggests, the addition of new units in a given market will inevitably put some downward pressure on the cost of existing units. But the larger effect tends to be upward pressure on housing costs because new homes are primarily built for higher-income residents.” (12)
This analysis ignores the well-accepted concept of filtering in urban economics. Filtering describes the process by which occupants of housing units go from higher-income to lower-income as the unit ages, becomes outdated and is subject to wear and tear. If higher-income households move to the newest housing, then other another household, typically of lower-income, can move into the vacant unit. If the number of households remains constant, then housing prices should decrease as housing development increases.
Because the real world does not look like an economic model, many people think that new housing causes increased housing prices. But the cause of the increased housing prices is often the same thing that is causing new housing construction: increased demand.
Take NYC for instance. In recent years, it issues permits for 10,000-20,000 or so new units of housing a year, but its population has grown by about 60,000 people a year. Combine this with the fact that new housing construction is both a sign and result of gentrification in a particular neighborhood, it is no wonder people think that housing construction pushes prices higher. While this is an understandable line of thought for the man or woman in the street, it is less so for the Lincoln Institute.
My bottom line: this is worth a read, but read with care.
September 30, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
