May 20, 2015
Equitable Transit-Oriented Development
Enterprise Community Partners has issued a white paper, Promoting Opportunity Through Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (eTOD): Making the Case. The Executive Summary opens,
Investments in transportation infrastructure can catalyze regional growth and improve mobility. Given limited public funds, public officials and transportation planners have increasingly recognized the benefit of coordinating transportation investments with land use, housing and economic development investments and policies. In particular, there has been a specific emphasis on facilitating transit-oriented development (TOD) – a growth model characterized by compact development, a mix of land uses, and multi-modal transportation connectivity. When properly planned, such development can support transit ridership and revenues, boost property values and enhance economic competitiveness.
While TOD can take many forms, for a variety of reasons there has been increased demand for transit-oriented neighborhoods with a critical mass of population, neighborhood-serving retail establishments, employment opportunities and/or economic activity. Some prefer these transit-oriented, amenity-rich neighborhoods based on lifestyle preferences. However, for others – particularly people with lower incomes or for whom driving is difficult or impossible – the accessibility that TOD offers is crucial to reaching jobs and life’s other necessities in an efficient and economical manner.
Unfortunately, a number of factors – most notably the prevalence of zoning codes that separate residential from commercial and retail uses – have limited the number of compact, mixed-use, multi-modal neighborhoods. To the extent that demand for housing in such neighborhoods – as a result of either choice and/or necessity – remains strong, scarcity of housing in these neighborhoods can increase property values. Significant price increases can lead to additional cost burdens, potential displacement and/or barriers to entry for low- and moderateincome households. If these households are displaced it can also reduce likely riders’ access to transit and limit employees’ and customers’ access to businesses.
One solution to these challenges is equitable TOD (eTOD), which is well-planned and implemented development near transit that accounts for the needs of low and moderate-income people, largely through the preservation and creation of affordable housing. eTOD can expand mobility options, lower commuting expenses and enhance access to employment, child care, schools, stores and critical services. This development model also conveys ancillary benefits to the broader community, the economy, the environment and the transportation system. (5-6)
This is all to the good, but the report does not struggle with a fundamental problem: local governments do not want to build housing for low- and moderate-income households because they tend to be a net drain on municipal budgets a opposed to the typical household living in a single-family home. Even local politicians who are sympathetic to eTOD will face many roadblocks from their constituents if they try to make it happen. Enterprise promises a second report that will address barriers to eTOD. Hopefully, it will address this issue head on.
May 20, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Wednesday’s Academic Roundup
- Rights at Risk in Privatized Public Housing, by Jaime Lee, Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 50, 2015, pp. 759-801.
- Making Firms Liable for Consumers’ Mistaken Beliefs: Theoretical Model and Empirical Applications to the U.S. Mortgage and Credit Card Markets, by Alexei Alexandrov, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Apr. 27, 2015.
- Discrimination at the Margins: The Intersectionality of Homelessness & Other Marginalized Groups, by Kaya Lurie, Breanne Schuster, & Sara Rankin, Seattle University School of Law, May 6, 2015.
- Supply Restrictions, Subprime Lending and Regional US House Prices, by André K. Anundsen & Christian Heebøll, Norges Bank Working Paper 18, 2014.
- Global Liquidity, House Prices and the Macroeconomy: Evidence from Advanced and Emerging Economies, by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi, Luis Felipe Céspedes, & Alessandro Rebucci, IDB Working Paper No. IDB-WP-576.
May 20, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
May 19, 2015
HAMP-ered Foreclosure Prevention
The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) released a report, Treasury’s Opportunity to Increase HAMP’s Effectiveness by Reaching More Homeowners in States Underserved by HAMP. The Introduction opens,
TARP’s signature foreclosure prevention program, the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), has struggled to reach the expected number of homeowners Treasury envisioned for the program. According to Treasury, TARP’s housing support programs were intended to “help bring relief to responsible homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments, while preventing neighborhoods and communities from suffering the negative spillover effects of foreclosure.” Treasury announced that HAMP itself aimed “to help as many as three to four million financially struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that is affordable for borrowers now and sustainable over the long term,.” The only long-term sustainable help provided through HAMP is a permanent mortgage modification, which become effective after the homeowner successfully completes a trial period plan. Through December 31, 2014, according to Treasury data, 1,514,687 homeowners have been able to get into a more affordable permanent HAMP modification (of which, 452,322 homeowners, or 29%, subsequently redefaulted on their HAMP modifications), while there have been 6,165,544 foreclosures nationwide over the same period based on CoreLogic data.” (1, footnotes omitted)
There is a lot of soul searching in this report about why HAMP has been so ineffective and the report offers tweaks to the program to improve it. But perhaps the problem is structural — a program like HAMP was never really in a position to make a bigger impact on the foreclosure crisis.
When compared to the federal government’s intervention during the Great Depression, HAMP seems too modest. President Roosevelt’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation bought out mortgages from banks in bulk and then refinanced them on more attractive terms than the private sector offered. HAMP, on the other hand, has trouble getting homeowners to apply to the program in the first place.
Bottom line: HAMP is too retail and what we needed and need is something that could be done wholesale.
May 19, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Round-Up
- Federal Housing Finance Agency issues update on the structure of a single mortgage backed security which will be sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to finance fixed rate mortgages backed by 1-4 unit properties.
- Minimum Housing Credit Rate Legislation has been introduced in the both the House and Senate, this legislation would permanently extend the 9% minimum tax credit for low income housing development in order to promote certainty and make the development of affordable housing ecomonically feasible.
May 19, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
May 18, 2015
Gen X & Millennial Renters
Jason Michael
MainStreet quoted me in Generation X and Millennials Are Choosing to Remain Renters. It opens,
Although James Crosby is getting married later this year to his college sweetheart, the financial analyst said they do not have plans to buy a home in Atlanta in the next few years.
While Crosby, who is 25, said he loathes paying rent and not building up equity in a home, renting has its benefits. Right now, it’s easy for him to budget for rent in an apartment, because the amount he pays each month is static and he will not be faced with any costly surprises such as repairing an air conditioner.
Like Crosby, fewer Americans are drawn to owning a home and plan to keep renting as wages remain stagnant and home prices have risen. A recent Gallup poll found that many people are content to be renters with 41% of non-homeowners who said they do not plan to purchase a home in “the foreseeable future.” The gap is widening since only one of three people agreed with this sentiment two years ago. The percentage of people who own homes has dropped to 61%, which is the lowest figure in almost 15 years, the poll revealed.
Tepid Economy Plays a Factor
Both the desire and ability to buy a house is waning among some individuals, because “the economy has kept young people from forming their own households as quickly as they had before the financial crisis,” said David Reiss, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School.
Some Gen X-ers and Millennials are also living at home longer than previous generations and wind up deferring homeownership. The weak and soft job markets have impacted Millennials who are also faced with carrying a heavy debt load from having to finance their undergraduate degrees.
“I would predict that if the economy warms up for a reasonable time, expectations about homeownership are likely to change quickly,” Reiss said.
May 18, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Monday’s Adjudication Roundup
- The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has ordered Goldman Sachs to pay National Australia Bank $100 million over $80 million in collateralized debt obligations.
- US Bank escapes liability under the False Claims Acts for filing FHA insurance claims without complying with HUD requirements.
- California federal judge grants summary judgment in suit against Bank of America for allegedly targeting minority neighborhoods with predatory loans in discriminatory lending suit.
May 18, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
May 15, 2015
Savings from a 15 Year Mortgage
MainStreet quoted me in Choosing a 15-year Mortgage Can Save You Thousands of Dollars. It opens,
Matt DeMargel and his wife, Misti, never considered obtaining a 30-year mortgage, because the amount of interest they would pay would equate to 60% of the cost of their house.
Instead, the public relations executive opted for a 15-year mortgage when he bought a 2,542-square foot home in Kingwood, Texas, a suburb of Houston.
“I hate debt, even the so-called ‘good kind’ of secured debt,” he said. “We are working to pay off our mortgage in five years. Even if we pull that off, we will have paid more than $30,000 in interest over that five year period.”
Dave Ramsey, a personal finance expert who is host of a radio show, said he always advocates choosing a 15-year fixed rate mortgage when buying a home.
“When you have a 15-year mortgage, it costs just a few dollars a month more,” he said. “It’s only 20% to 25% more per month than the traditional 30-year mortgage, but it saves you 15 years of your life in debt.”
The amount of money homeowners can save from paying less interest can easily help fund a large portion of their retirement, but determining whether a 15-year mortgage is right for your household can be more complicated.
Benefits of a Shorter Duration
Depending on your goals and lifestyle, a 15-year fixed rate mortgage is the quickest way to owning your home. If one of your plans is to receive a much lower interest rate, then choosing a shorter interval will meet your objective, said Brook Benton, a vice president at Atlanta-based PrivatePlus Mortgage.
“A 15-year loan is typically the lowest fixed rate you can obtain,” he said. “If you like the security of a fixed rate and the payment fits into your budget, this product is a home run.”
Paying off a mortgage quickly is a priority for some homeowners who detest shelling out more money for interest. If a consumer borrows $200,000 over 30 years at 4.17%, he or she will pay just over $150,000 of interest, said Craig Lemoine, an associate professor of financial planning at The American College of Financial Services in Bryn Mawr, Pa. A homeowner who opted for a 15-year note would pay a slightly lower interest rate of 3.29% and his total interest payment drops to around $53,600. (Even a 15-year note at the same rate of that 30-year loan would generate just under $70,000 in interest.)
“A reduction of lifetime interest paid can be quite attractive,” Lemoine said. “The lure of a shorter note is the vision of a paid-off home in 180 months. The emotional satisfaction is tantalizing.”
While you receive the benefit of a lower interest rate, a 15-year mortgage commits consumers to higher payments. If it fits within your overall budget, then paying more each month should not be a concern.
This route is also advantageous for homeowners who are refinancing their mortgage or contemplating downsizing to a less expensive or smaller home, said David Reiss, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School.
Homeowners who have lived in their house for a few years and want to refinance their mortgage should consider a 15-year note, because they have likely “paid down a significant amount of principal,” Reiss said. A combination of a lower interest rate and the possibility that the homeowner is now earning a higher salary means the monthly payments could be manageable, he said.
May 15, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
