04 21 2015
  7:43 am  
40 Years of Service
Charlene Crowell

In an unconventional move, legislation designed to reshape the nation’s $10 trillion housing finance market was released on Sunday, March 16. Since then, reactions to proposed broad changes have ranged from strong support to ‘wait-and-see,' and outright opposition.

According to the bill’s authors, Senators Tim Johnson, Chair of Senate Banking Committee and Mike Crapo, the committee’s Ranking Member, the rare weekend release was the result of months of effort to accommodate varied input to secure bipartisan support and move the proposal forward in time for a full Senate vote by November.  

In a news release, Johnson said, “This proposal includes an explicit guarantee in order to add stability to the economy, keep costs reasonable for borrowers and renters, and ensure fair access to the secondary market for all lenders.”

Crapo said, “There is broad support to fix our flawed housing system, and today’s actions are a strong step toward ending the status quo.”  

But just how much support there is for the 442-page legislation really depends on who is speaking.

“Housing finance reform was too important to rush a committee deal on, and in my view, it’s also too important to rush a markup on,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, also a member of the Senate Banking Committee. “We should have a full, open discussion before we decide to set out on a new path, and that means members of the Banking Committee should have real time to dig in and consult with people before a markup.”

While the Senate Banking Committee deliberates on the proposed legislation, organizations that researched the housing crisis and others representing consumers affected by it are speaking up.

In a recent radio interview, Mike Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) said, “It’s a radical surgery proposal; it’s somewhere between a complete tear-down and an extreme gut rehab. The question is does that get us to a better place? And middle and moderate income families might be less served with this approach. The new model could make it harder and more expensive for a lot of people to get mortgages.”  

CRL research shows that the average family would need 14 years to save enough money for a 5 percent down payment. For Black families, the number of required years would double to 28 for the same 5 percent and 17 years of saving for the average Latino family.

Further, home down payment savings do not take into account closing costs, which typically are an added 3 percent of the cost of the mortgage or mortgage insurance that is required for homes purchased with less than a 20 percent down payment. In CRL’s view, there is no wisdom in requiring these homeownership delays when so many families have successfully paid mortgages made with low down payments such as FHA loans.

Despite these findings, the Johnson-Crapo legislation would still require mandatory down payments: 3.5 percent for first-time borrowers and 5.0 percent for all others. The legislation would also eliminate affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The bill would phase out both GSEs and replace them with a new agency. Instead of affordable housing goals, market-based incentives would be developed to promote business in underserved areas for both homeownership and rental properties.

Speaking on behalf of the National Council of LaRaza, Eric Rodriguez said, “Latinos have still not recovered from the housing crisis, which sent millions of homes into foreclosure and decimated our community’s wealth. In order to rebuild assets for Hispanic families, this legislation must, above all, ensure access to affordable credit for low-and-middle income families, which will help build stronger neighborhoods and support our national economy.”

Rodriguez’s concerns are also true for millions of Black families who, like many Hispanic ones, were targeted and sold high-cost, predatory mortgages that resulted in foreclosures and lost wealth. Earlier CRL research found that these two communities of color bore the brunt of lost family wealth during the housing crisis.

A new policy brief from the Urban Institute concludes that these racial disparities in mortgage lending are still continuing.

The Urban Institute wrote, “While all borrowers lost household equity in the Great Recession and are now feeling the crunch of tightening credit, minority borrowers may feel it most. Many of these minority borrowers received the kind of predatory mortgages now forbidden under the Dodd-Frank Act. .  . .Now, strict credit standards and lowered FICO scores due to missed payments or foreclosure prevent many of these same borrows from entering the housing market despite lower prices.”   

Additionally, the Institute found:

After 2005, mortgages purchased by African-Americans and Hispanic borrowers dropped respectively by 76 and 78 percent;

From 2005 to 2012, the drop in loans for African-Americans went from more than a half-million loans to 131,470;

The decline for Hispanic consumers during these same years dropped from 986,206 to less than 250,000; and

Loans to non-Hispanic White and Asian borrowers declined by only 56 and 59 percent.

In short, while the overall housing market continues to improve, the consumers hit hardest by the financial decline are still being left out of the recovery.

As CRL’s Calhoun has said, “With a fragile housing market, it does raise questions about whether this is the time to shake the whole thing up.”

Charlene Crowell is a communications manager with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at Charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org

Pacific NW Carpenters Union

Commenting Guidelines

  • Keep it clean: Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language
  • No personal attacks: We reserve the right to remove offensive comments
  • Be truthful: Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything
  • Be nice: No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person
  • Help us: If you see an abusive post, let us know at info@theskanner.com
  • Keep to topic: We will remove irrelevant posts and spam
  • Share with us: We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts; the history behind an article

Recently Published by The Skanner News

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • When should we use military to enforce US goals? NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state. "There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said. Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe. The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad. "Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president." The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address. Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us," Walker said. "We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them." Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said. Under Obama, a U.S.-led coalition of Western and Arab countries is conducting regular airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. also has hundreds of military advisers in Iraq helping Iraqi security forces plan operations against the Islamic State, which occupies large chunks of northern and western Iraq. Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy. He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests. "I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to." Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power. "Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said. Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations. "The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
    Read More
  • Some lawmakers, sensing a tipping point, are backing the parents and teachers who complain about 'high stakes' tests   
    Read More
  • Watch Rachel Maddow interview VA Secretary Robert McDonald  
    Read More
  • Some two thousand people pack halls to hear Trayvon Martin's mom speak   
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all
Carpentry Professionals



About Us

Breaking News

The Skanner TV

Turn the pages

Hood to Coast
The Skanner Photo Archives