- A bill to reform Housing Assistance including programs like section 8 and project based assistance was introduced in the House Financial Services Housing Subcommittee by Republican Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO). The bill (HR 3700) seeks to streamline costs to increase efficiency and to reduce energy and water waste.
- The Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling, will be hosting a Hearing entitled The Future of Housing in America: 50 years of HUD and its Impact on Federal Housing Policy. The hearing is scheduled for Oct. 22 at 10 am and Rep. Hensarling has released a statement calling for public input. Hensarling characterizes HUD as having failed to live up to its mission, despite 1.6 trillion dollars in spending, he then calls for innovation in solving the generational cycle of poverty which, in his view, is the real issue.
Tag Archives: HUD
Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Round-Up
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) new Know Before you Owe mortgage disclosure rule went into effect this week. The new rule was implemented as a reform under Dodd-Frank. Borrowers now have to be allowed three days to consider a mortgage loan, under certain circumstances, and Lenders are required to make a number of disclosures via forms mandated under the Truth in Lending Act. The CFPB has released this video to explain the new rule.
- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) continues its recent flurry of grant making activity by awarding $138 Million to over 100 groups to fight housing discrimination. The grants were made under the auspices of the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). The awardees will use the funds to support education, outreach, investigations and capacity building.
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.
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.
Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Round-Up
- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced that the Choice Neighborhoods Program (CNP) has selected five cities to receive $150 million to revitalize distressed HUD housing. CNP is a part of the White Houses’ Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, which seeks to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty through public/private partnerships and broad collaboration to promote healthier neighborhoods. The CNP program specifically seeks to work closely with stakeholders, such as residents; police; and educators, at the local level, to address challenges facing their communities. The goals of the program include: revitalizing housing, improving social mobility and educational outcomes, and encouraging investment in the community. The CNP grants have been made to Atlanta, Georgia; Kansas City, Missouri; Memphis, Tennessee; Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Sacramento, California. All five cities submitted a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization plan to transform an area of concentrated poverty.
Monday’s Adjudication Roundup
- Union pension funds have filed a petition for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether Bank of New York Mellon Corp. is liable for failure in oversight of 26 trusts of over $30 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities.
- S. Securities and Exchange Commission rejects claims that its in-house court is unconstitutional in suit against Atlanta investment adviser, Timbervest LLC.
- The D.C. Circuit allows reconsideration of HUD’s disparate-impact defense in American Insurance Association case, where the lower court had interpreted the Fair Housing Act to allow suits in which seemingly neutral actions have a discriminatory impact.
CFPB Mortgage Market Rules
Law360 quoted me in Questions Remain Over CFPB Mortgage Rules’ Market Effects (behind a paywall). The story highlights the fact that the jury is still out on exactly what a mature, post-Dodd-Frank mortgage market will look like. As I blogged yesterday, it seems like the new regulatory regime is working, but we need more time to determine whether it is providing the optimal amount of sustainable credit to households of all income-levels. The story opens,
Despite fears that a set of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau mortgage rules that went into effect last year would cut off many black, Hispanic and other borrowers from the mortgage market, a recent government report showed that has not been the case.
Indeed, the numbers from the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council’s annual Home Mortgage Disclosure Act annual report showed that the percentage of black and Hispanic borrowers within the overall mortgage market actually ticked up in 2014, even as the percentage of loans those two communities got from government sources went down.
However, it may be too early to say how the CFPB’s ability-to-repay and qualified-mortgage rules are influencing decisions by lenders and potential borrowers as the housing market continues to recover from the 2008 financial crisis, experts say.
“Clearly, there’s a story here, and clearly there’s a story from this 2014 data,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. “But I don’t know that it’s that QM and [ability to repay] work.”
The CFPB was tasked with writing rules to reshape the mortgage market and stop the subprime mortgage lending — including no-doc loans and other shoddy underwriting practices — that marked the period running up to the financial crisis.
Those rules included new ability-to-repay standards, governing the types of information lenders would have to collect to have a reasonable certainty that a borrower could repay, and the qualified mortgage standard, a class of mortgages with strict underwriting standards that would be considered the highest quality.
The rules took effect in 2014, after the CFPB made changes aimed at easing lenders’ worries over potential litigation by borrowers should their QMs falter.
Even with those changes, there were worries that black, Hispanic and low-income borrowers could be shut out of the market, as lenders focused only on making loans that met the QM standard or large loans, known as jumbo mortgages, issued primarily to the most affluent borrowers.
According to the HMDA report, that did not happen in the first year the rules were in effect.
Both black and Hispanic borrowers saw a small uptick in the percentage of overall mortgages issued in 2014.
Black borrowers made up 5.2 percent of the overall market in 2014 compared with 4.8 percent in 2013, when lenders were preparing to comply with the rule, and 5.1 percent in 2012, the report said. Latino borrowers made up 7.9 percent of the overall market in 2014 compared with 7.3 percent in 2013 and 7.7 percent in 2012, the federal statistics show.
And the percentage of the loans those borrowers got from government-backed sources like the Federal Housing Administration, a program run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development targeting first-time and low- to middle-income borrowers, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies fell.
Overall, 68 percent of the loans issued to black borrowers came with that direct government support in 2014, down from 70.6 percent in 2013 and 77.2 percent in 2012, the HMDA report found. For Hispanic borrowers, 59.5 percent of the mortgages issued in 2014 had direct government support, down from 62.8 percent in 2013 and 70.7 percent in 2012.
For backers of the CFPB’s mortgage rules, those numbers came as a relief.
“We were definitely waiting with bated breath for this,” said Yana Miles, a policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending.
To supporters of the rules, the mortgage origination numbers reported by the federal government showed that black and Hispanic borrowers were not being shut out of the mortgage market.
“Not only did we not see lending from those groups go to zero, we’re seeing a very, very small baby step in the right direction,” Miles said. “We’re seeing opposite evidence as to what was predicted.”
And in some ways, the CFPB has written rules that met the goal of promoting safe lending following the poor practices of the housing bubble era while still giving space to lenders to get credit in the market.
“We have a functioning mortgage market,” Reiss said.
